Skip to main content

Security report for janvari.lv

Technology · 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 janvari.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to prevent automated bot access. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) that restricts direct content access until the visitor completes a CAPTCHA verification. The page content is minimal and focused solely on security validation, with no business or contact information presented. The WHOIS data for the domain could not be retrieved due to query limits, limiting the ability to verify domain registration details and legitimacy. Technically, the site uses legacy CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, but the actual page is a custom security challenge. It employs Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for bot mitigation and visitor tracking. The site lacks visible security headers and privacy or cookie policies, indicating gaps in compliance and security best practices. From a security posture perspective, the use of BitNinja WAF and CAPTCHA is a strong defense against automated threats, but the absence of security headers and privacy policies reduces overall security maturity. The inability to access WHOIS data further complicates trust assessment. The site is safe in terms of content, with no adult or explicit material detected. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible without passing the CAPTCHA, resulting in a low AI score and limited business insights. Strategic recommendations include improving transparency with accessible WHOIS data, implementing privacy and cookie policies, enhancing security headers, and improving accessibility and SEO features to support better user experience and compliance.

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 janvari.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

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 site being a security challenge page, no direct business information, market positioning, or revenue model is discernible. The presence of BitNinja security services suggests the site owner prioritizes protection against cyber threats. The lack of contact details or company branding beyond the BitNinja logo limits business intelligence. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable from the content. The target audience is general web visitors who must verify they are not bots before accessing the actual site content.

Security posture

The security posture is characterized by active use of a WAF (BitNinja) and Google reCAPTCHA to prevent automated abuse. However, the absence of HTTP security headers (e.g., CSP, HSTS), lack of visible SSL/TLS configuration details, and missing privacy and cookie policies indicate incomplete security hygiene. The WHOIS data unavailability restricts domain legitimacy verification. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate security controls focused on access control but lacks comprehensive security and compliance features.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible and up to date to improve domain transparency and trustworthiness.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Enhance accessibility and SEO by improving page content, navigation, and meta tags.
  5. Establish incident response and vulnerability disclosure contacts or pages to improve security posture and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website content is a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page blocking direct access until CAPTCHA is solved. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page presented by BitNinja to verify visitors are not automated bots before allowing access.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS Reset, JavaScript, Google reCAPTCHA v2, Google Analytics, BitNinja security scripts
Frameworks
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5 (meta tags only)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • IP greylisting and delisting mechanism via BitNinja

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by BitNinja security 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 on the page.
  5. Uses Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics tracking.
  6. Page content is minimal and focused solely on bot verification.
  7. No explicit security headers or advanced SEO features detected.
  8. No evidence of adult or unsafe content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, but the actual page is a custom security challenge by BitNinja. The tech stack includes HTML5, CSS reset styles, JavaScript, Google reCAPTCHA v2, and Google Analytics tracking scripts. The page is mobile responsive at a basic level but lacks advanced accessibility and SEO optimizations. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. The hosting provider is not identifiable from the content. The site relies heavily on third-party services for security and analytics but lacks modern security headers and privacy compliance features.
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 janvari.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 janvari.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.