Skip to main content

Security report for kurzemeszivis.lv

Kurzemes zivis · Other · Latvia

Partial score · DNS & email only

57/100

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

Kurzemes zivis is a small Latvian business specializing in the farming and sale of rainbow trout using Scandinavian methods without antibiotics or chemical disinfectants. The company operates fish farming pools in Pelču pagasts near Kuldīga, Latvia, emphasizing natural fish feed and water recirculation systems. The website is built on WordPress and uses standard web technologies such as jQuery and Google Fonts. It provides a good user experience with clear content relevant to its business but lacks comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, contact details, and security headers. The site is secured with HTTPS but could improve its security posture by implementing additional headers and formal policies. No WHOIS data was available due to query limits, limiting domain trust analysis. Overall, the site is safe, professional, and suitable for general audiences but would benefit from enhanced compliance and security measures.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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.

    • 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching kurzemeszivis.lv

This scan found 14 issues across 4 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
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
20
Average
57

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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

The company targets local/regional customers interested in high-quality, antibiotic-free farmed rainbow trout. Its business model focuses on sustainable fish farming and direct product sales. The website supports brand presence and customer engagement through social media channels on Facebook and Instagram. The absence of detailed business registration or contact information on the site limits transparency. The company appears to be a small enterprise with a niche market position in the Latvian fish farming sector. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries from the website content.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled, ensuring encrypted communications. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No security or incident response policies are published, and no vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. The site does not use analytics or tracking scripts, reducing privacy risks but also limiting business intelligence capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common attacks.
  3. Publish clear contact information and establish a security incident response process to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate risks from known vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Kurzemes zivis
Description
Latvijā audzētas varavīksnes foreles. Foreles audzētas zivju audzēšanas baseinos Pelču pagastā pie Kuldīgas pēc skandināvu (Somu) metodes, neizmantojot antibiotikas vai citus ķīmiskus dezinfekcijas līdzekļus. Zivju audzēšana noris, izmantojot ūdens recirkulācijas sistēmu ar dabīgu zivju barību no Dānijas vai Somijas.
Key services
fish farming, fish processing, fish product sales
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.6.0, jQuery UI, WordPress 5.8.10, Google Fonts (Roboto)
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based site focused on fish farming business in Latvia.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content.
  5. Social media presence on Facebook and Instagram confirmed.
  6. No security headers detected in the HTML content; HTTPS is enabled.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  8. No forms collecting sensitive data except a basic search form.
  9. No evidence of security incident response or vulnerability disclosure.
  10. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 5.8.10, using jQuery 3.6.0 and jQuery UI libraries. It loads Google Fonts (Roboto) for typography. The site uses a responsive design with CSS media queries for mobile optimization. Performance appears moderate with no heavy scripts or trackers detected. The site lacks advanced SEO features beyond basic meta tags and Open Graph image. Accessibility features are basic but present. Hosting provider and server details are not disclosed. No CDN or advanced caching mechanisms are evident from the HTML content. The site could benefit from performance optimization and enhanced accessibility compliance.
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 kurzemeszivis.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 kurzemeszivis.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.