Skip to main content

Security report for makslabutuznemejam.lv

Technology · N/a

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

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website makslabutuznemejam. lv serves as a security challenge page implemented by BitNinja to prevent automated or malicious access.

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 makslabutuznemejam.lv

This scan found 26 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
57
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
55

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

This domain is used as a security checkpoint rather than a business-facing website. There is no identifiable company information, contact details, or commercial content. The target audience is general internet users attempting to access protected resources. The business model is focused on cybersecurity access control via CAPTCHA validation and IP greylist management. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or parent company information is available. The presence of BitNinja branding indicates affiliation with a known security service provider. The lack of privacy and cookie policies, as well as contact information, limits trust and compliance indicators.

Security posture

The site demonstrates a basic security posture by implementing Google reCAPTCHA to block automated bots and using BitNinja's IP greylist mechanism. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces the overall security effectiveness. The legacy CMS meta tags suggest potential outdated software usage, which could pose vulnerabilities if active. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The site is served over HTTPS (implied by recaptcha.net and Google Analytics usage), but SSL configuration details are not visible. Overall, the security measures are functional but could be improved with modern best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly link to privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Remove or update legacy CMS meta tags to avoid confusion and potential security risks.
  4. Provide contact or incident response information to improve transparency and support.
  5. Regularly audit and update all third-party integrations and security components to maintain a strong security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security challenge with CAPTCHA to block automated/bot traffic, indicating WAF or security gateway presence (BitNinja). Content is minimal and access is restricted until CAPTCHA is solved. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This website serves as a security challenge page to validate visitors via CAPTCHA to prevent automated or malicious access. It is not a business or commercial site but a security gateway.
Key services
CAPTCHA validation, IP greylist management
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v2, BitNinja security platform
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation
  • IP greylist management via BitNinja

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a CAPTCHA challenge page by BitNinja to prevent automated access
  2. No business or commercial content present
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms policies found
  4. No contact information or company details provided
  5. Legacy CMS meta tags present but likely not in active use
  6. Uses Google Analytics and Google reCAPTCHA for tracking and bot mitigation
  7. No security headers detected in HTML content
  8. Content is minimal and access is blocked until CAPTCHA is solved
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses standard HTML5 and CSS3 with JavaScript for dynamic content and language translation. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for visitor tracking and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The presence of legacy CMS meta tags for Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 suggests either outdated software or reused templates. The site is mobile responsive at a basic level and uses inline styles and scripts for UI adaptation. Performance is moderate given the external script dependencies. No advanced frameworks or modern CMS platforms are detected. Hosting provider information is not available from the HTML content. The technical implementation is sufficient for a security challenge page but lacks modern optimizations and security enhancements.
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 makslabutuznemejam.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 makslabutuznemejam.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.