Skip to main content

Security report for jun.lv

Technology · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

51/100

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

The website jun.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to prevent automated malicious access by requiring visitors to complete a CAPTCHA validation. This indicates the domain or visitor IP is greylisted for security reasons. The page content is minimal and does not provide business or contact information, privacy policies, or terms of service. The technical infrastructure includes use of Google reCAPTCHA and Google Analytics, with meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, likely remnants or defaults rather than active CMS usage. The security posture shows some bot mitigation best practices but lacks visible security headers and WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, limiting trust assessment. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for normal browsing without CAPTCHA completion, restricting full analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

6 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

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

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

Keep watching jun.lv

This scan found 14 issues across 5 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
0
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
51

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 security challenge page, no direct business information or market positioning can be discerned from the site content. The presence of BitNinja security services suggests the domain is protected by a third-party cybersecurity provider specializing in bot mitigation and IP greylisting. No contact details, company branding beyond BitNinja, or business model insights are available. The domain's WHOIS data is inaccessible, preventing verification of registrant details or domain age. The site appears to be in a protective state rather than actively presenting business services or products.

Security posture

The site employs Google reCAPTCHA to prevent automated access and uses BitNinja's greylist security mechanism, indicating a proactive approach to mitigating malicious traffic. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HSTS were detected in the provided data. The SSL configuration could not be assessed. The lack of privacy and cookie policies, combined with unavailable WHOIS data, reduces transparency and compliance posture. The security challenge page itself is a strong indicator of active security controls but also limits user access and analysis. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with better transparency and header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced site-wide with strong SSL/TLS settings.
  3. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide visible and verified contact information and business details on the website.
  5. Address WHOIS data availability issues by using a registrar that allows WHOIS queries or providing transparency information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The page is a security CAPTCHA challenge by BitNinja indicating visitor IP is greylisted and requires CAPTCHA validation to proceed. 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 validate visitors and prevent automated malicious access.
Key services
IP greylist management, bot mitigation, cybercrime prevention
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google reCAPTCHA, Google Analytics, BitNinja security platform
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 for bot mitigation
  • IP greylist management via BitNinja

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
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 content is blocked by BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No business or contact information is provided on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  5. Page uses Google reCAPTCHA and Google Analytics.
  6. Page meta tags indicate Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 generators, likely outdated or default tags.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data.
  8. No contact emails or phone numbers found.
  9. No social media links or physical addresses found.
  10. Page is minimal and serves only as a security gate.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a minimal HTML page serving a CAPTCHA challenge with embedded Google reCAPTCHA scripts and Google Analytics tracking. Meta tags indicate Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 generators, which are outdated and likely residual. The page is styled with embedded CSS and uses JavaScript for language translation and CAPTCHA handling. The site lacks modern SEO optimization and accessibility features appear basic. Performance is moderate given the minimal content but user experience is limited due to the blocking challenge. The technical stack is simple but functional for the security purpose it serves. Opportunities exist to modernize the CMS and improve technical SEO and accessibility.
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 jun.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 jun.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.