Skip to main content

Security report for latvijas-pilskalni.lv

Other · Latvia

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'Latvijas pilskalni / Latvian hillforts' is a cultural and historical platform dedicated to Latvian hillforts, aiming to preserve and share knowledge about these heritage sites. The site targets a general audience interested in Latvian history and culture. It is built on WordPress with a modern design featuring dark mode support and responsive layouts. The technical infrastructure includes common WordPress plugins for maps, video popups, and donations, indicating moderate digital maturity. Security posture is basic with no advanced headers or policies detected, and WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, limiting domain trust assessment. Overall, the site is safe, professional, and functional but lacks visible privacy and security policies, which are recommended for compliance and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

9 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 latvijas-pilskalni.lv

This scan found 24 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
65
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
57

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 website serves as an informational and cultural resource rather than a commercial business. It does not display explicit business model details or revenue streams. The target audience is likely cultural enthusiasts, historians, and tourists interested in Latvian heritage. The site uses several WordPress plugins to enhance user experience and content delivery. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The lack of contact and business information suggests a small-scale or non-commercial entity focused on cultural preservation.

Security posture

Security maturity is low to moderate. The site uses HTTPS (implied by URLs) but lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. Forms exist but no explicit security measures or data protection statements are found. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. No known vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected in the content. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security controls and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, etc.) to improve security posture.
  3. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure information to enhance transparency.
  4. Obtain and publish WHOIS data or use a WHOIS privacy service with clear justification.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress plugins and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Nekas netiks aizmirsts...
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, OpenStreetMap, FontAwesome, Responsive YouTube Vimeo Popup, RevSlider, Captcha Plugin, Easy PayPal Donation, Custom Related Posts, WP Dark Mode
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
40/100

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 cultural/historical site about Latvian hillforts.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No explicit contact information or security policies found.
  5. No visible security headers or advanced security measures detected.
  6. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond common external domains.
  7. Website content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  8. Good design and navigation with dark mode support.
  9. No WAF or blocking detected; content fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a variety of plugins including map integration (OpenStreetMap), video popups, captcha, donation tools, and dark mode support. The design is modern and responsive with good SEO meta tags and Open Graph data for social sharing. Performance is moderate with some external dependencies. Accessibility is basic but present. No advanced frameworks detected beyond WordPress and common JS libraries. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not determinable from the content. Technical risks include lack of security headers and missing compliance documentation.
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 latvijas-pilskalni.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 latvijas-pilskalni.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.