Skip to main content

Security report for imagine.lt

Imagine · Other · Lithuania

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Imagine is a small Lithuanian creative agency specializing in shaping unique brands through design and visual identity services. The website presents a professional and modern digital presence built on Next.js and React, targeting businesses seeking branding solutions. The technical infrastructure is contemporary with good mobile optimization and moderate performance. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented, but lacks advanced security headers and explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. WHOIS data is unavailable, which reduces trustworthiness and raises concerns about domain legitimacy. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 100 · High
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. 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching imagine.lt

This scan found 25 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. See sample alerts.

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
55
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
64

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

Imagine operates as a niche creative branding agency in Lithuania, focusing on brand shaping and design services. The business model revolves around providing creative solutions to organizations needing unique brand identities. The website content and structure suggest a small-sized company with a local market focus. Absence of detailed business registration or contact information limits deeper business intelligence. The use of modern web technologies and Google Analytics indicates a digitally mature approach. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the domain or website data.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and a cookie consent mechanism, indicating baseline security and privacy compliance. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options is a gap. No visible forms reduce attack surface but also limit user engagement. Lack of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure policies suggests limited security maturity. The missing WHOIS data is a significant concern for domain legitimacy and trust. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with standard best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish explicit privacy, security, and incident response policies to improve transparency and compliance.
  3. Add verified company contact emails and phone numbers to increase business credibility and user trust.
  4. Consider registering and publishing WHOIS data or using a verified domain registrar to improve domain legitimacy.
  5. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to demonstrate security commitment and facilitate responsible reporting.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Imagine
Description
Shaping unique brands
Key services
Brand shaping, Creative design, Visual identity
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Next.js, React, Google Analytics
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF detected
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or invalid for this domain
  3. Website uses modern Next.js framework and React
  4. Cookie consent banner present indicating GDPR awareness
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage
  6. Physical address in Vilnius, Lithuania is provided
  7. No visible forms or data collection fields on homepage
  8. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts are used
  9. No security headers detected in provided data
  10. No privacy or security certifications displayed
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Next.js and React, leveraging server-side rendering and modern JavaScript frameworks. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are integrated for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile optimized with responsive images and video content. Performance is moderate, with deferred and async script loading. No CMS or hosting provider information is evident. The absence of security headers and WHOIS data are technical risks. Overall, the technical implementation is modern but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and transparency.
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 imagine.lt. 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 imagine.lt.

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.