Skip to main content

Security report for ltt.rs

iNPUTmice · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website hosts an open source Android email client project named 'lttrs-android' developed by iNPUTmice. It targets users seeking a lightweight, maintainable email client supporting the modern JMAP protocol. The project is positioned as a niche offering within the open source technology sector, emphasizing minimal dependencies and maintainability. The repository is hosted on Codeberg.org, a community-driven platform, and shows active development with recent commits and multiple contributors. The business model is primarily open source with free distribution and optional paid versions via app stores.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 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 ltt.rs

This scan found 20 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
75
Security headers
60
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
65

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 project maintains a focused market position catering to privacy-conscious and technically inclined Android users. It leverages modern Android Jetpack technologies and the JMAP protocol to differentiate itself from traditional email clients. Revenue streams likely include donations and paid app versions. The ecosystem includes partnerships with F-Droid, Google Play, and translation platforms like Weblate. The project benefits from community trust signals such as build badges and open source licensing. Growth indicators include active commits and multiple branches. Strategic observations suggest a strong emphasis on maintainability and minimalism.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses clientTransferProhibited domain status, indicating good domain security practices. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, representing an area for improvement. No advanced security headers were detected, and no explicit security or incident response policies are published. The absence of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file limits transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the public content. Overall, the security posture is solid for an open source project but could benefit from enhanced policies and DNS security.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS integrity and security.
  2. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism if cookies or tracking are used in the future.
  5. Provide clear contact information for security and general inquiries to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
iNPUTmice
Description
No-frills, easy to use, easy to maintain Email client for Android based on the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP).
Key services
Android email client application, JMAP protocol support, Open source code repository
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Java, Android Jetpack, JMAP protocol, Forgejo (Gitea fork), HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript
Frameworks
Android Jetpack, Forgejo
Platforms
Android, Web (Codeberg.org)
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status
  • No DNSSEC enabled (potential improvement area)

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is a public open source repository for an Android email client.
  2. Content is technical and developer-focused.
  3. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity.
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found.
  5. No cookie consent or advanced privacy compliance mechanisms detected.
  6. Good use of HTTPS and domain security status.
  7. WHOIS privacy protection used but justified.
  8. No advertising or tracking detected.
  9. Site is well maintained with recent commits and active development.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern tech stack including Java for Android development, Android Jetpack frameworks, and Forgejo (a Gitea fork) for repository hosting. The site uses standard web technologies such as HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. The repository is well organized with multiple branches and tags, and includes CI build status badges. Technical debt appears low with active maintenance. Opportunities exist to improve SEO and accessibility further. The hosting environment is stable and community-oriented.
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 ltt.rs. 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 ltt.rs.

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.