Skip to main content

Security report for kartes.lv

Jāņa sēta · Transportation · Latvia

Partial score · DNS & email only

67/100

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

Jāņa sēta is a leading cartography and geospatial solutions company based in Latvia, serving the Baltic region. The company specializes in producing traditional cartographic publications, providing high-quality geospatial data services, and delivering custom mapping and research projects. Their market position is strong within the Baltic states, targeting both business and individual customers interested in maps, education, tourism, transport, and research. The website reflects a medium-sized enterprise with a professional digital presence, leveraging WordPress and WooCommerce technologies to offer products and services online. Technically, the website is built on a modern WordPress platform with a comprehensive plugin ecosystem including Yoast SEO, WooCommerce, and cookie consent management tools. The site is mobile-optimized, moderately performant, and SEO-friendly, with structured data enhancing search visibility. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, although some security headers could be improved and explicit incident response information is absent. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professionally designed, and compliant with GDPR requirements. It maintains clear contact channels and social media presence, supporting business credibility. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected, and the domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy and incident response contacts, and improving accessibility features to further strengthen compliance and user trust.

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

4 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 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: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google APIs

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

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

Keep watching kartes.lv

This scan found 17 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
70
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
67

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

Jāņa sēta operates in the cartography and geospatial sector, focusing on the Baltic market. Their competitive advantage lies in combining traditional cartographic expertise with modern geospatial IT solutions. The business model includes direct sales of cartographic products via an e-commerce platform and bespoke geospatial services for sectors like tourism, transport, and education. The company demonstrates growth through digital transformation, partnerships with BalticMaps platforms, and active social media engagement. Their partnership ecosystem includes BalticMaps and related mapping services, enhancing their market reach. The website content and structure indicate a mature business with a clear focus on quality and customer service, supported by client testimonials and detailed project showcases.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security foundation with HTTPS enforced and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are not visibly configured, representing an area for improvement. The absence of a public security policy or incident response contact channels limits transparency in security governance. The use of reputable WordPress plugins and regular updates is implied but should be continuously monitored. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and publishing security-related policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Regularly audit and update all WordPress plugins and core to minimize risks from known vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to comply with standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  5. Consider adding a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and improve security communication.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Jāņa sēta
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jāņa sēta
Description
Vadošais kartogrāfijas un ģeotelpisko risinājumu uzņēmums Baltijas valstīs. Līdzās tradicionālās kartogrāfijas izdevumu sagatavošanai un izdošanai uzņēmums nodrošina augstas kvalitātes ģeotelpisko datu uzturēšanu un ģeotelpisko risinājumu izstrādi.
Key services
Cartographic publications and maps, Geospatial data services and solutions, Custom mapping and research projects
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.7.2, WooCommerce 9.6.2, jQuery, Bootstrap, Font Awesome, Yoast SEO, Smart WooCommerce Search, Contact Form 7, Cookie Law Info plugin, Omniva WooCommerce plugin, YITH Infinite Scrolling, OnePress theme and OnePress Plus plugin
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security plugins (implied by cookie consent and contact form plugins)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook (_fbp cookie)
Marketing tools
CookieYes (cookie consent management)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented
  3. Clear and multiple contact methods including form, email, phone, and physical address
  4. Use of modern WordPress ecosystem plugins and themes
  5. Social media presence on major platforms
  6. No visible security vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information publicly available
  8. Good SEO and structured data implementation
  9. No adult or questionable content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.7.2 with WooCommerce 9.6.2, leveraging a modern tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, Font Awesome, and various plugins for SEO, search, contact forms, and cookie management. The theme used is OnePress with OnePress Plus plugin, providing a responsive and visually appealing design. Performance is moderate with some optimization potential. The site uses structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and social media integration. Cookie consent is managed via Cookie Law Info plugin with granular user controls. No hosting provider details were detected. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security headers and performance tuning.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 62/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with kartes.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 kartes.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.