Skip to main content

Security report for jrlaw.lv

Jaunzars & Partneri · Finance · Latvia

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Jaunzars & Partneri is a Latvian law firm specializing in various legal domains including financial and economic crimes, AML, banking and financial law, insolvency, real estate, and international disputes. The website presents a professional image with clear service offerings and multi-language support targeting business clients. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap and jQuery frameworks, supplemented by Google Analytics and Tag Manager for user tracking. The site is mobile optimized and provides a cookie consent mechanism indicating GDPR compliance. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled, but lacks advanced security headers and explicit incident response contacts. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, but the site appears legitimate and consistent with a professional legal service provider. Overall, the website scores moderately high in content quality, technical implementation, security, privacy compliance, and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 100 · Low
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  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 jrlaw.lv

This scan found 22 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
30
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
80
Average
61

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 finance and legal sectors, focusing on specialized legal services for businesses. Its market position is that of a small but established Latvian law firm with a clear business model centered on professional legal consultancy. The website's multi-language support suggests targeting local and international clients. The absence of detailed company registration or contact information on the site limits deeper business intelligence. The use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager indicates an interest in tracking visitor behavior for marketing or service improvement. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and a cookie consent banner, demonstrating baseline security and privacy awareness. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces its defense-in-depth posture. No forms or input fields were detected in the provided HTML, limiting attack surface but also reducing user interaction capabilities. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which could be improved to enhance trust and readiness. The use of third-party tracking scripts introduces moderate user tracking but is common for business websites. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could benefit from enhancements in headers, incident response transparency, and accessibility.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a security.txt file and clearly publish incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Enhance accessibility features to comply with standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  4. Improve SEO by adding structured data (JSON-LD) and meta tags describing business and services.
  5. Consider publishing detailed company contact information including emails and phone numbers to increase business credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jaunzars & Partneri
Description
Jaunzars & Partneri is a law firm offering legal services including financial and economic crimes, AML, banking and financial law, insolvency and liquidation of credit institutions, real estate and construction, international disputes, and legal support for business.
Key services
Financial and economic crimes, AML, Banking and financial law, Insolvency and liquidation of credit institutions, Real estate and construction, International disputes, Legal support for business
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, WordPress
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
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 challenge
  2. Content is professional and relevant to legal services
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content
  4. Cookie consent banner present and GDPR compliance indicated
  5. No explicit security headers detected in the HTML source
  6. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error
  7. Uses WordPress CMS with Bootstrap and jQuery
  8. Google Analytics and Tag Manager used for tracking
  9. No forms detected in the provided HTML content
  10. Multi-language support with Latvian, English, and Russian versions
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for client-side scripting. Google Analytics and Tag Manager are integrated for visitor tracking. The site loads CSS and JS assets from its own domain, indicating self-hosting or dedicated hosting. Performance is moderate with no explicit speed optimizations detected. Mobile optimization is good due to Bootstrap usage. Accessibility is basic with no ARIA roles or landmarks detected in the HTML snippet. SEO is basic with meta viewport and title tags but lacks Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data. No forms or interactive elements were found in the analyzed HTML, limiting data collection capabilities. Overall, the technical stack is standard for small business websites but could be modernized with enhanced SEO, accessibility, and security 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 jrlaw.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 jrlaw.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.