Skip to main content

Security report for mamegroup.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

68/100

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

The website mamegroup.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a BitNinja CAPTCHA security challenge page, which blocks direct access to any business or service content. The page is designed to validate visitors as non-robots to mitigate cybercrime and automated abuse. Due to this blocking, no substantive business information or services are available for analysis. The site references legacy CMS platforms such as Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 in its metadata, indicating outdated technology usage. The presence of Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts suggests some level of visitor tracking, but no privacy or cookie policies are present. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing verification of domain registration details and reducing trustworthiness. Overall, the site’s digital maturity and security posture are limited by the blocking mechanism, and no direct business insights can be derived.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

6 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching mamegroup.lv

This scan found 17 issues across 5 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
72
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
68

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

No accessible business content or contact information is present on the site. The domain appears to be protected or challenged by BitNinja’s security service, likely due to prior abuse or suspicious activity. There is no evidence of company identity, market positioning, or service offerings. The lack of privacy policies, terms of service, or contact details further limits business credibility. The site’s use of multiple languages for CAPTCHA instructions indicates an intent to serve a broad audience, but no direct business model or sector can be identified.

Security posture

The site employs BitNinja’s security challenge with Google reCAPTCHA v2 to prevent automated access, which is a positive security control against bots. However, no HTTPS enforcement or security headers are visible in the HTML content, and WHOIS data is inaccessible, limiting transparency. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps. The security posture is moderate due to the WAF challenge but lacks comprehensive best practices and transparency. The site should improve SSL/TLS configuration, add security headers, and provide clear privacy and incident response information to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a strong TLS configuration to secure all 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 GDPR and privacy compliance.
  4. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to enhance business credibility and security readiness.
  5. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible and accurate to improve domain registration transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website is blocked by BitNinja security challenge requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by a BitNinja CAPTCHA security challenge
  2. No actual business content or services are accessible
  3. No contact information or policies are present
  4. WHOIS data is inaccessible due to query limits
  5. Site uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) in metadata
  6. Multiple languages supported for CAPTCHA instructions
  7. Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts are present
  8. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement in HTML content
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal) in metadata, suggesting outdated technology. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for visitor tracking and uses Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The site is hosted behind BitNinja’s security challenge, which blocks direct access until CAPTCHA validation. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility. No modern frameworks or hosting provider details are evident. The site lacks visible SEO optimization and security headers, indicating technical debt and modernization opportunities.
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 mamegroup.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 mamegroup.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.