Skip to main content

Security report for kakiem.lv

Other · Latvia

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website kakiem.lv currently serves a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its content, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism. The visible metadata and HTML content reveal the use of outdated CMS platforms such as Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are no longer supported and pose significant security risks. There is a lack of any privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, and no contact or business information is provided, limiting the ability to assess the business credibility or compliance posture. Technically, the site shows minimal content with basic styling and a scripted redirect after a countdown, likely part of the security challenge. No modern security headers or HTTPS enforcement are visible in the HTML content, and no analytics or tracking technologies are detected. The external link to BitNinja.IO suggests reliance on third-party security services. Overall, the technical implementation is outdated and lacks modern web best practices. From a security perspective, the site’s use of legacy CMS versions and absence of visible security headers or policies indicates a weak security posture. The presence of a security challenge page improves protection but also limits content accessibility and analysis. The WHOIS data shows an active domain with consistent name servers, but no registrant details are provided, which restricts trust evaluation. Given these factors, the website’s overall risk is elevated due to outdated software, lack of compliance documentation, and limited transparency. Strategic recommendations include upgrading CMS platforms, implementing comprehensive security headers and HTTPS, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear business contact information to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

8 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 kakiem.lv

This scan found 25 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
57
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
58

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 website kakiem.lv appears to be a small-scale operation based in Latvia, as indicated by the domain and name servers. The lack of business information, contact details, or clear description suggests it may be inactive or under maintenance behind a security challenge. The presence of Joomla and WordPress metadata implies it may have been used for content management or blogging purposes. No clear market positioning, revenue streams, or partnerships are evident beyond the security service link to BitNinja.IO. The business model and target audience cannot be determined from the available data. The absence of privacy and compliance policies further limits the business intelligence assessment.

Security posture

The security posture of kakiem.lv is currently weak due to the use of outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) known for multiple vulnerabilities. The site employs a security challenge page with browser integrity checks and an automated redirect, indicating some level of protection likely provided by a third-party WAF or security service. However, no security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HTTP Strict Transport Security are visible, and HTTPS enforcement is not confirmed in the HTML content. There is no evidence of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The lack of privacy and cookie policies also indicates compliance gaps. Overall, while the WAF provides a barrier, the underlying platform and security hygiene require significant improvement.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade Joomla and WordPress installations to the latest supported versions or migrate to a secure CMS platform.
  2. Implement HTTPS with HSTS and ensure all site content is served securely.
  3. Add comprehensive security headers including Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  4. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide visible and verified contact information including incident response and abuse contacts.
  6. Conduct regular vulnerability assessments and patch management.
  7. Improve website content quality and navigation to enhance user experience and SEO.
  8. Review and optimize technical infrastructure for performance and accessibility.
  9. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  10. Engage in security awareness and culture building to maintain ongoing protection.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security challenge with automated redirect and browser integrity check, indicating WAF or security protection blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Joomla!
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Browser integrity check script
  • Automated redirect with countdown

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 content is blocked behind a security challenge page.
  2. Uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which are unsupported and vulnerable.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or business details provided on the page.
  5. External link to BitNinja.IO indicates use of third-party security service.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. Minimal content and poor SEO and accessibility.
  8. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement in HTML content.
  9. WHOIS data shows active domain with consistent name servers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, both of which are outdated and unsupported, posing significant security and compatibility risks. The HTML content includes a scripted security challenge with browser integrity checks and an automated redirect, likely implemented by a third-party security provider (BitNinja.IO). There is no evidence of modern frontend frameworks or performance optimization. The site lacks SEO best practices, accessibility features, and mobile optimization is basic. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, indicating minimal data collection. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified beyond the name servers (areait.lv). Overall, the technical infrastructure is outdated and requires modernization to meet current web standards and security requirements.
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 kakiem.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 kakiem.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.