Skip to main content

Security report for gustins.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website gustins.lv is currently inaccessible to normal visitors due to a BitNinja Web Application Firewall (WAF) challenge page requiring CAPTCHA validation. This security measure blocks automated or suspicious traffic, indicating prior security concerns or abuse attempts. The site content is minimal and serves only as a bot mitigation gateway, providing no business or service information. The metadata references outdated CMS platforms such as Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, suggesting the underlying infrastructure may be legacy or poorly maintained. The presence of Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts indicates some level of visitor tracking, but no privacy or cookie policies are present to inform users about data collection practices. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing verification of domain registration details and reducing trustworthiness. Overall, the site lacks business transparency, security best practices, and user-friendly content, resulting in a low trust and quality rating.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

  2. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

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

Keep watching gustins.lv

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
60

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention gustins.lv, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for gustins.lv right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Due to the WAF challenge and lack of accessible content, no concrete business intelligence can be derived. There is no visible company name, contact information, or description of services. The site appears to be protected by BitNinja security services, possibly indicating a business that requires strong protection or a site previously targeted by malicious actors. The outdated CMS references and absence of modern business indicators suggest limited digital maturity and possibly a small or inactive business presence.

Security posture

The security posture is mixed. On one hand, the site employs BitNinja WAF with CAPTCHA to mitigate automated threats, which is a positive security control. On the other hand, there is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or modern security headers, and the CMS versions referenced are outdated and potentially vulnerable. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates compliance gaps. The lack of WHOIS data further complicates trust assessment. Overall, the site demonstrates basic security controls but lacks comprehensive security hygiene and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with strong TLS configuration and enforce it site-wide.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Update or migrate CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerabilities.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  5. Provide visible business contact information and security policies to improve trust and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. Site is blocked by BitNinja WAF security challenge requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA v2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by BitNinja WAF with CAPTCHA challenge
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No contact information or business details present
  5. Site uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) in metadata
  6. Multiple Google tracking scripts present
  7. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement detected
  8. Site content quality and professionalism are poor due to blocking and minimal content
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) as indicated in meta tags, which are outdated and unsupported, posing security risks. The presence of Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts shows some analytics integration. The site is protected by BitNinja WAF, which blocks access until CAPTCHA validation is completed, indicating a security-first approach but also limiting user access. The HTML is valid but minimal, with no SEO optimization or accessibility features detected. Mobile optimization is basic, and performance is moderate given the limited content. The lack of visible security headers and HTTPS enforcement is a technical risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears dated and in need of modernization and improved security controls.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gustins.lv. 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 gustins.lv.

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.