Skip to main content

Security report for lak4.lv

SIA „LAK 4” · Technology · Latvia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

43/100

Risk levelHigh

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

SIA „LAK 4” is a Latvian small-sized company specializing in ERP consulting and implementation services, particularly focused on the iScala software suite by Epicor. Founded in 2006, the company offers IT audits, training, system customization, and ongoing support to businesses seeking ERP solutions. The website content clearly communicates the company's services and contact information, targeting Latvian enterprises interested in business management software. Technically, the website is built with basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, incorporating Twitter widgets for social media integration. However, it lacks modern security features such as HTTPS and security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating limited compliance with data protection regulations. The absence of WHOIS data due to query limits restricts domain legitimacy verification, but the website content aligns with a legitimate small business profile. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate professionalism but requires significant improvements in security and privacy compliance to enhance trustworthiness and user safety.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

10 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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

  3. 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"

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

Keep watching lak4.lv

This scan found 23 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. 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
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
43

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 company operates in the technology sector, providing specialized ERP consulting services with a focus on the iScala platform. Its business model is B2B, serving Latvian companies seeking ERP implementation and support. The partnership with Epicor Software Corporation is a key trust and market positioning indicator. The company maintains a modest digital presence with a basic website and Twitter profile. Revenue streams likely derive from consulting fees, training, and software customization. The lack of advanced digital marketing or analytics tools suggests a traditional business approach. No subsidiaries or parent companies are indicated. The company’s market niche is well-defined but limited in scale, consistent with a small enterprise.

Security posture

The website currently exhibits a low security maturity level. It lacks HTTPS, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No security headers are implemented, increasing vulnerability to common web attacks such as clickjacking or MIME sniffing. There is no evidence of a security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are critical for managing security incidents and compliance with GDPR and NIS2 requirements. The absence of privacy and cookie policies further weakens compliance posture. No forms or user input fields reduce attack surface but also limit user engagement capabilities. Overall, the security posture is basic and requires urgent enhancements to protect user data and build trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS across the entire website to secure data transmission and improve user trust.
  2. Add standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users about data handling practices.
  4. Establish a security policy page and provide incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SIA „LAK 4”
Description
SIA „LAK 4” dibināta 2006. gadā kā grāmatvedības ārpakalpojumu sniedzējs un programmatūras „iScala” ieviešanas un atbalsta konsultantu birojs. Uzņēmums ir Epicor Software Corporation dīleris, nodrošinot pilnu „iScala” programmatūras ieviešanas ciklu. Piedāvā konsultācijas, apmācības, sistēmas pielāgošanu un IT auditu uzņēmumiem, kas izmanto vai izvēlas „iScala” ERP risinājumu.
Key services
iScala ERP ieviešana, IT audits, Apmācības un konsultācijas, Sistēmas pielāgošana, Atbalsts un optimizācija
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Twitter widgets
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error, preventing domain registration verification.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the website.
  4. Contact information includes a company email and phone number with clear context.
  5. Website uses basic HTML/CSS with embedded Twitter widgets and external links to partner sites.
  6. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement detected in the provided data.
  7. No forms detected on the page; no user input collection observed.
  8. Business information is clearly presented but content quality and design are basic.
  9. No evidence of security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure.
  10. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond Twitter widgets.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple technology stack consisting of static HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with embedded Twitter widgets for social media integration. There is no detected CMS or advanced frameworks. The site appears to be hosted on a basic web server without HTTPS enabled, which is a significant technical shortcoming. Performance is likely moderate given the small size and simplicity of the site, but mobile optimization and accessibility are only basic. SEO is minimal with meta keywords and description present but no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags. The lack of forms reduces complexity but also limits interactivity. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but outdated and lacking modern security and compliance features.
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 lak4.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 lak4.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.