Skip to main content

Security report for jvc-insurance.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

54/100

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

The website jvc-insurance.com appears to represent an insurance-related business but currently only displays a security challenge page powered by BitNinja.IO, blocking access to actual content. The domain is registered since 2015 with a registrar NetEarth One Inc., but no direct business information or contact details are available on the site. The presence of outdated CMS versions Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 indicates significant technical debt and potential security vulnerabilities. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no SSL/HTTPS information is available, suggesting poor security posture. Overall, the site lacks professionalism, content quality, and trust indicators, resulting in a low AI score and high risk for users.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

5 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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching jvc-insurance.com

This scan found 15 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
25
Average
54

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 lack of accessible content and business information, it is not possible to determine the company's market positioning, competitive advantages, or business model. The domain age suggests the business could be established, but no evidence supports this. The absence of contact information, certifications, or partner domains limits insights into the company's operations or partnerships. The website does not demonstrate any marketing or analytics tools, indicating low digital maturity.

Security posture

The website is protected by a security challenge page from BitNinja.IO, which may help mitigate automated attacks but also blocks legitimate content access. The use of outdated CMS versions is a critical vulnerability that could expose the site to exploits. No HTTPS or security headers information is available, and no privacy or cookie policies are implemented, indicating poor compliance with modern security and privacy standards. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not found, further reducing security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade Joomla and WordPress installations to the latest supported versions to eliminate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure data in transit.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact information and business details to improve trust and credibility.
  5. Configure security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) and conduct regular security audits.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked by a security check page powered by BitNinja.IO with a redirect and browser integrity check. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • clientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is currently inaccessible due to a security challenge page by BitNinja.IO
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page
  3. Outdated CMS versions detected (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) indicating potential security risks
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  5. No SSL/HTTPS information available from provided data
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  7. No social media or email contacts found
  8. WHOIS data shows domain registered since 2015 with no privacy protection
  9. Domain status clientTransferProhibited is a positive security indicator
  10. Website content quality and professionalism are poor
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses very outdated CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which are no longer supported and pose significant security risks. The hosting provider is NetEarth One Inc., but the domain uses name servers from areait.lv, which may indicate third-party DNS hosting. The site is currently slow and not optimized for mobile or accessibility. The presence of a BitNinja.IO security challenge page indicates some level of protection but also blocks content access, limiting user experience and SEO. No modern analytics or marketing tools are detected, suggesting low digital maturity.
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 jvc-insurance.com. 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 jvc-insurance.com.

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.