Skip to main content

Security report for jansona-birojs.lv

SIA "Zvērināta advokāta Paula Jansona birojs" · Other · Latvia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Zvērināta advokāta Paula Jansona birojs is a Latvian law firm providing a broad range of legal services including civil, criminal, business, family, inheritance, and insolvency law. The firm targets both local and international clients, emphasizing experienced legal representation and positive client outcomes. The website reflects a professional legal services provider with clear contact information and detailed team profiles. Technically, the site uses established but somewhat dated technologies such as Bootstrap 3.3.7 and jQuery 3.2.1, with integration of Google Maps and fonts. The site is mobile responsive and well structured, though lacking modern CMS or advanced hosting details. Security posture is moderate; no HTTPS or security headers information was found in the provided data, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. WHOIS data was unavailable due to query limits, limiting domain trust verification. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy in content but would benefit from improved security and compliance measures.

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

10 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

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  3. 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 jansona-birojs.lv

This scan found 27 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
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
10
Average
45

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

The firm operates in the legal services sector, focusing on civil and criminal law, business legal support, and family and inheritance law. Its market position is that of a small but established law office with over 10 years of experience among its lawyers. The business model is service-based, targeting individuals and businesses requiring legal assistance in Latvia. The firm leverages positive client recommendations and membership in professional bodies such as the Latvian Council of Sworn Advocates and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Latvia to build trust. There is no indication of subsidiaries or parent companies. The website content and contact details support a transparent and credible business presence.

Security posture

The website shows a moderate security maturity level. No explicit security headers or HTTPS enforcement details were found in the provided data, which is a concern. No forms or data collection points reduce attack surface but also limit user interaction. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The use of older JavaScript libraries may pose potential vulnerabilities if not updated. Overall, the security posture is adequate for an informational site but requires enhancements to meet modern compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with strict transport security (HSTS) to secure all communications.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and provide incident response contact information.
  5. Update JavaScript libraries to latest secure versions and conduct regular security audits.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
SIA "Zvērināta advokāta Paula Jansona birojs"
Registration number
40203353202
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SIA "Zvērināta advokāta Paula Jansona birojs"
Description
Law firm Zvērināta advokāta Paula Jansona birojs has brought together a number of legal specialists who can offer our customers high-quality legal assistance meeting all modern requirements.
Key services
Routine legal support for businesses, Company foundation and registration, Representation in civil and criminal cases, Debt collection, Family and inheritance law, Insolvency process
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.2.1, Bootstrap 3.3.7, Google Fonts (EB Garamond, Forum), Google Maps API
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional law firm site with clear structure and contact information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. No visible security headers or advanced security policies detected.
  4. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain trust verification.
  5. No analytics or tracking scripts detected, indicating minimal user tracking.
  6. No forms present on the site; no data collection via forms.
  7. External links mostly to trusted domains (Google APIs, Facebook).
  8. Site uses older Bootstrap 3.3.7 and jQuery 3.2.1 versions, which may have known vulnerabilities if not patched.
  9. Site is mobile responsive and well structured with good navigation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional front-end stack with Bootstrap 3.3.7 and jQuery 3.2.1, which are stable but outdated and may have known vulnerabilities. Google Fonts and Google Maps API are integrated for enhanced UI and location display. No CMS or backend platform is identified, suggesting a static or custom-built site. Performance is moderate with no explicit optimization indicators. The site is mobile responsive and has good navigation clarity. Lack of analytics or tracking scripts indicates minimal user tracking but also limits marketing insights. Technical debt is moderate due to older libraries and missing modern security practices.
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 jansona-birojs.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 jansona-birojs.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.