Skip to main content

Security report for jpb.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 jpb.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to prevent automated bot access and mitigate cybercrime risks. The page requires visitors to complete a CAPTCHA validation before accessing the requested content, indicating active security filtering. The site uses older CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated in meta tags, which may pose security risks if used elsewhere on the domain. The technical infrastructure includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA for bot verification. However, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or business information is provided, limiting transparency and compliance. WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits, preventing full domain legitimacy assessment.

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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching jpb.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 jpb.lv, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for jpb.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

The site appears to be protected by BitNinja's security services, suggesting a focus on cybercrime prevention and bot mitigation. No explicit business or company information is available, and the page functions primarily as a security gate rather than a business portal. The presence of multiple CMS meta tags may indicate legacy or multi-platform usage. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or terms of service reduces business credibility and user trust. The target audience is general internet users attempting to access the site, who must pass the CAPTCHA challenge to proceed.

Security posture

The security posture includes the use of BitNinja's greylist and CAPTCHA challenge to block suspicious IPs and automated bots, which is a strong preventive measure. However, the absence of visible security headers and outdated CMS versions mentioned in meta tags raise concerns about potential vulnerabilities. The SSL/TLS configuration could not be assessed from the data provided. No incident response or security policy information is available. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate security controls but lacks transparency and modern best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Update all CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  2. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide accessible contact information including security incident response channels.
  5. Conduct a full security audit including SSL/TLS configuration and vulnerability scanning.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The page is a security CAPTCHA challenge by BitNinja indicating the visitor IP is greylisted and requires CAPTCHA validation before access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA validation page presented by BitNinja to verify visitors are not automated bots before allowing access to the requested content.
Key services
IP greylist management, CAPTCHA validation, Bot and cybercrime mitigation
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal (mentioned in meta keywords), Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2, BitNinja security platform
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of CAPTCHA to prevent automated access
  • Integration with BitNinja security platform

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a BitNinja CAPTCHA security 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 provided
  5. Use of outdated CMS versions indicated in meta tags
  6. Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts present
  7. No visible security headers or SSL configuration details
  8. Page is primarily a security gate, not a business or content site
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated by meta tags, which are outdated and potentially insecure. The page is a minimal CAPTCHA challenge interface with embedded Google reCAPTCHA v2 and tracking scripts from Google Analytics and Tag Manager. The design is basic and mobile optimization is limited. No advanced frameworks or modern JavaScript libraries were detected. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. The site is hosted behind BitNinja security services, which provide bot mitigation but also block access until CAPTCHA completion. The lack of privacy and cookie policies and absence of contact information indicate technical debt and compliance gaps.
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 jpb.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 jpb.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.