Skip to main content

Security report for lspa.lv

Other · N/a

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

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website lspa.lv is currently inaccessible for normal browsing due to a BitNinja security challenge page that requires CAPTCHA validation to proceed. This indicates the site is actively protecting itself from automated or suspicious traffic, but as a result, no normal business or informational content is served to visitors at this time. The page metadata references legacy CMS platforms such as Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, and Drupal, suggesting the site may be using outdated or reused templates. The technical infrastructure includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. However, no HTTPS enforcement or security headers were detected in the provided data, and WHOIS information is unavailable due to query limits, reducing transparency and trust. Overall, the site’s security posture is moderate due to the CAPTCHA protection but lacks other best practices. Business information, privacy policies, and contact details are absent, limiting credibility and compliance. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, adding security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and improving WHOIS transparency.

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 lspa.lv

This scan found 22 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
80
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
46

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 security challenge blocking access, no direct business information or contact details are available on the site. The site appears to be protected by BitNinja, a security service, which may indicate a focus on cybersecurity or hosting protection. The lack of visible business data, privacy policies, or contact information limits insights into market positioning, revenue streams, or partnerships. The presence of legacy CMS references suggests the site may be maintained with older technology. No related or partner domains were identified. The target audience appears to be general visitors who are currently blocked due to security concerns. Without further data, business intelligence remains limited.

Security posture

The site employs a BitNinja security challenge page with Google reCAPTCHA v2 to block automated or suspicious visitors, which is a positive security control. However, no HTTPS enforcement or security headers were detected, which are critical for protecting data in transit and mitigating common web attacks. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, reducing transparency about domain ownership and legitimacy. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. The site uses Google Analytics and Tag Manager, which implies user tracking but lacks visible privacy compliance mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing HTTPS, security headers, and clear privacy and contact information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all site traffic.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information including business emails and phone numbers.
  5. Improve WHOIS transparency by ensuring domain registration data is accessible and accurate.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website is presenting a BitNinja security challenge CAPTCHA page blocking access to normal content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This website is currently presenting a security challenge page to visitors, requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. It is not serving normal business or informational content.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • Security challenge page to prevent automated access

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently inaccessible for normal browsing due to a security CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No business or contact information is presented on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limit error.
  5. Site uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal) in metadata, indicating possible legacy or reused templates.
  6. Use of BitNinja security service to block suspicious IPs.
  7. No visible contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links.
  8. External scripts include Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager, indicating tracking.
  9. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement visible in provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms indicated by meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, and Drupal, which may pose security and maintenance challenges. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking and uses Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The HTML is valid and includes responsive design elements but lacks advanced SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance is moderate, but the user experience is poor due to the blocking security challenge. The absence of HTTPS and security headers represents technical debt and security risk. Modernization opportunities include upgrading CMS platforms, enforcing HTTPS, and improving privacy and security 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 lspa.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 lspa.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.