Skip to main content

Security report for latma.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website latma.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a security verification page that employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. No business content, metadata, or contact information is available for analysis, and WHOIS data retrieval failed due to query limits. The site appears to be protected by a generic web application firewall or security mechanism, which restricts content visibility and limits the ability to assess the site's business and security posture comprehensively. The technical infrastructure includes Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA, indicating some level of modern frontend technology and bot mitigation. However, the absence of visible security headers, privacy policies, or contact details reduces trust and compliance confidence. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, business credibility, and privacy compliance due to the blocking mechanism and lack of accessible information.

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

7 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 latma.lv

This scan found 21 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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
66

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

Due to the lack of accessible content and metadata, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. There is no indication of company name, sector, services, or market positioning. The domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, preventing verification of registration details or legitimacy. The site likely serves a business or service that requires protection from automated access, but without further data, no conclusions about business model or partnerships can be drawn.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal but includes Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated bot access. No other security headers or mechanisms are visible in the provided content. The lack of HTTPS information and security policies reduces confidence in the overall security maturity. The presence of a WAF or security challenge page suggests some level of protection, but the inability to access content limits the assessment of vulnerabilities or compliance gaps. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTPS with a strong SSL/TLS configuration to ensure secure communications.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve security posture.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide accessible contact information and security incident response channels to improve transparency and compliance.
  5. Consider reducing or optimizing WAF/security challenge mechanisms to allow legitimate user access while maintaining protection.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website content is a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 and no actual business content accessible, indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot verification

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  2. No business content or metadata is accessible for analysis.
  3. No contact information, policies, or business details are present in the accessible content.
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing domain registration analysis.
  5. External resources are limited to CDN and Google reCAPTCHA domains.
  6. No signs of adult or explicit content detected.
  7. Security posture is minimal with only reCAPTCHA protection visible.
  8. Website appears to be protected by a generic WAF or security mechanism.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot detection. No CMS or backend technologies are identifiable from the provided content. The site is currently blocked behind a security verification page, limiting performance and accessibility analysis. No SEO or accessibility features are detectable. The hosting provider and infrastructure details are not available. The technical implementation is basic and focused primarily on security verification rather than content delivery.
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 latma.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 latma.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.