Skip to main content

Security report for graftik.com

Graftik Digital Design Studio · Technology · Latvia

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Graftik Digital Design Studio is a small, professional design agency based in Riga, Latvia, specializing in digital design, branding, web development, and multimedia services. The company positions itself as a leading design studio in the Baltic region, targeting brands and organizations seeking tailored digital solutions.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of graftik.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  4. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching graftik.com

This scan found 21 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
57
Security headers
55
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
68
Average
58

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Graftik operates in the technology sector as a digital design studio offering branding, web, and multimedia services. Their business model focuses on project-based client engagements, highlighted by detailed case studies of notable clients such as Luminor and the State Blood Donor Centre. The company targets medium to large organizations and startups requiring bespoke digital design solutions. Their partnership ecosystem includes recognized brands, enhancing their market credibility. The website content and structure indicate a growth-oriented, client-focused approach with consistent branding and professional presentation. Revenue streams likely derive from design projects, consulting, and digital product development. The absence of terms of service and detailed legal disclosures suggests room for maturity in compliance and governance.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security posture with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR requirements. Tracking scripts are configured to deny ad and analytics storage by default until user consent is given, reflecting privacy-conscious practices. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents a potential area for improvement. No incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure policies are published, which could hinder rapid response to security events. No vulnerabilities or sensitive data exposures were identified in the HTML content. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by formalizing security policies and improving HTTP header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy including incident response contacts.
  2. Add security HTTP headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Create and publish a terms of service page to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Graftik Digital Design Studio
Description
Leading design studio in Riga offering web development and branding services. Get tailored digital design solutions from our professionals.
Key services
Brand identity design, Web and mobile development, Multimedia presentations and interactive installations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, GSAP (TweenMax), Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (gtag.js), Facebook Pixel, CookieConsent2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Google Tag Manager and Analytics configured with consent defaults denying ad and analytics storage
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • Facebook Pixel implemented with noscript fallback

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
CookieConsent2
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed with clear branding and navigation
  2. Content is focused on digital design services with multiple case studies
  3. Privacy and cookie policies are present and implemented with consent mechanisms
  4. No terms of service or explicit security policies found
  5. Use of modern tracking and analytics tools with privacy-conscious default settings
  6. No visible security vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data
  7. No WAF or blocking detected, full content accessible
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based front-end with libraries like jQuery and GSAP for animations and interactivity. Google Tag Manager and Analytics are integrated asynchronously with consent management to control tracking. The site loads external CSS and JS from reputable CDNs, improving performance and reliability. The HTML structure is valid and semantic, supporting SEO and accessibility, though accessibility features are basic. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design elements. Hosting provider details are not explicitly detectable from the HTML. Performance is moderate with some room for optimization, especially in loading external resources asynchronously. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or static site architecture.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 52/100 −2Medium35 findingsView report
  2. 54/100Medium33 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with graftik.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review graftik.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.