The website madonasjurists.lv currently presents a BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge page, indicating that access to the actual website content is blocked until the visitor completes a CAPTCHA validation. This suggests the site is protected against automated bots or potentially malicious traffic. Due to this, no direct business information or services are visible on the landing page. The site uses outdated CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are known to have security vulnerabilities and should be updated to modern versions. The technical infrastructure includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. However, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or company information is available, limiting trust and credibility assessment. WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits, preventing verification of domain registration details. Overall, the site’s security posture is moderate due to the presence of BitNinja protection but is weakened by outdated CMS and lack of compliance documentation.
Scanned ·
NIS2 and GDPR posture
GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
7of 7
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
a(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
b(b) Incident handling: One indicator
c(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
d(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
e(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
f(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
g(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
h(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
i(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
j(j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside
Partly checked
One indicator
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.
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
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"
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.
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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
61
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
Breach exposure
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Dark web exposure
Add-on
Leaked records that mention madonasjurists.lv, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for madonasjurists.lv right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Business context
Business profile
Due to the CAPTCHA block, no direct business intelligence can be gathered from the website content. The domain name suggests a legal or jurist-related service possibly based in Latvia, but no explicit business model, market positioning, or services are described. The absence of contact details and corporate information limits assessment of company size, partnerships, or growth indicators. The use of BitNinja indicates a concern for security and abuse prevention, which may reflect on the business's operational environment.
Security posture
The website employs BitNinja security services to block suspicious or automated traffic, which is a positive security measure. The use of Google reCAPTCHA further strengthens bot mitigation. However, the presence of outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) introduces significant security risks due to known vulnerabilities. No security headers were detected in the provided content, and SSL/TLS configuration details are unavailable. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires urgent CMS updates and policy implementations.
Recommendations
Update Joomla and WordPress installations to the latest supported versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance.
Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
Provide clear contact information and business details to improve trust and credibility.
Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact channels.
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
BitNinja detected. The page is a security challenge page by BitNinja, blocking access until CAPTCHA is solved. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.
Business
Description
This page is a CAPTCHA challenge page designed to block automated or suspicious visitors. It does not provide business or service information.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent
Technology
Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA, Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor
Security
Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation
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
Website is currently blocked by a BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge page.
No business or contact information is available on the landing page.
CMS versions detected are outdated and pose security risks.
No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
External scripts include Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA.
No emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
Site appears to be protected by BitNinja security service.
Technical notes
Notes
The website uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, both of which are outdated and unsupported, posing security and maintenance challenges. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection. The page is served with minimal content due to the BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge, limiting performance and SEO effectiveness. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. The lack of modern frameworks or platforms and absence of security headers indicate technical debt and modernization opportunities. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the 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.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with madonasjurists.lv. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review madonasjurists.lv.