Skip to main content

Security report for latsertinspection.com

Latsert · Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

44/100

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

Latsert is a survey company with a website that provides minimal content and no detailed business description. The site is built on WordPress and uses the SitePress Multilingual CMS plugin, indicating some level of multilingual support. However, the lack of substantive content, absence of contact information, and missing privacy and cookie policies suggest a low level of digital maturity and limited user engagement features. The domain is registered since 2014, which aligns with a potentially established business, but the website itself does not reflect this maturity. From a security perspective, the website lacks visible security headers and does not have DNSSEC enabled, which could expose it to certain DNS-related attacks. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No incident response or security contact information is provided, limiting the ability to report or respond to security issues effectively. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile in terms of content safety, as no adult or questionable content is detected. However, the minimal content and lack of transparency reduce trustworthiness and business credibility. Strategic improvements in content richness, security posture, and compliance documentation are recommended to enhance the website's professionalism and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

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.

    • 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

  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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching latsertinspection.com

This scan found 23 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. 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
42
Email security
60
DNS health
50
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
44

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

The company appears to operate in the survey or inspection sector, but no detailed information about market positioning, revenue streams, or partnerships is available. The business model and target audience are not clearly defined on the website. The lack of contact details and certifications further limits insight into the company's competitive advantages or growth indicators. The domain age suggests some operational history, but the online presence is underdeveloped, which may impact customer acquisition and trust.

Security posture

The current security posture is basic with HTTPS presumably enabled (inferred from URLs using https), but no advanced security headers or DNSSEC are implemented. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response mechanisms are visible. The website does not expose sensitive data or show signs of vulnerabilities in the provided content, but the lack of security best practices and transparency reduces overall security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance and improve user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing attacks.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve protection against common web attacks.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security or abuse contacts to facilitate incident reporting and response.
  5. Enhance website content quality and navigation to improve user experience and business credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Latsert
Description
Latsert is a survey company as indicated by the website title. No further business description is available in the provided content.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, SitePress Multilingual CMS
Mobile
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 minimal and lacks substantive information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms detected.
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with SitePress Multilingual plugin.
  5. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  6. Domain registration is stable and consistent with business age.
  7. No external advertising or analytics services detected.
  8. No social media or external business links found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with the SitePress Multilingual CMS plugin, indicating a multilingual capability. The domain uses name servers ns1.itt.lv and ns2.itt.lv, but the hosting provider is not explicitly identified. The HTML content is minimal with basic meta tags and no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags. No analytics or advertising scripts are detected, suggesting limited tracking or marketing efforts. Mobile optimization appears basic due to viewport meta tag presence but no further evidence of responsive design. The site lacks accessibility and SEO optimization features. Performance characteristics cannot be fully assessed due to limited content.
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 latsertinspection.com. 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 latsertinspection.com.

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.