Skip to main content

Security report for mazsalacasvsk.lv

Other · N/a

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

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website mazsalacasvsk.lv currently serves a security challenge page powered by BitNinja, requiring visitors to complete a CAPTCHA to proceed. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) that blocks direct access to mitigate automated or malicious traffic. Due to this blocking, the actual business content is inaccessible, limiting the ability to analyze the company's services, market position, or business model. The site references older CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, which may indicate legacy infrastructure or outdated software components. Technically, the site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking and analytics, alongside Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. However, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present in the accessible content, and no contact information is provided. Security best practices such as HTTPS status and security headers cannot be verified from the provided data. The WHOIS lookup failed due to query limits, preventing extraction of domain registration details. The security posture is limited by the presence of the WAF challenge but lacks transparency and visible security headers or policies. The site’s content quality and user experience are minimal due to the blocking page. Overall, the site appears to prioritize security filtering but lacks publicly accessible business or compliance information, resulting in a low trust and credibility score. Strategic recommendations include implementing and verifying HTTPS, publishing clear privacy and cookie policies, updating CMS software to supported versions, and providing transparent contact and security incident response information to improve trust and compliance.

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 mazsalacasvsk.lv

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.

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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
60

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 website being blocked by a security challenge page, no direct business information is available. The domain mazsalacasvsk.lv does not present any company name, description, or contact details. The presence of Joomla and WordPress meta tags suggests the site may have been built or managed using these CMS platforms, but the versions are outdated. The site’s primary function currently appears to be a security checkpoint rather than a business-facing portal. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or market positioning data can be inferred from the accessible content.

Security posture

The website is protected by BitNinja's WAF, which enforces a CAPTCHA challenge to block automated or suspicious traffic. This is a strong security control to prevent bot attacks and abuse. However, the lack of visible security headers, absence of HTTPS confirmation, and no published security or privacy policies reduce the overall security transparency. The outdated CMS versions referenced in meta tags may pose vulnerabilities if still in use. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. Overall, the security posture is moderate due to the WAF but lacks comprehensive security best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Update CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  5. Provide visible contact information and security incident response channels to improve trust and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website content is a security challenge page by BitNinja, requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. This indicates a WAF or security filtering mechanism blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation
  • Security check by BitNinja.IO

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by a BitNinja security challenge requiring CAPTCHA completion.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit exceeded error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  4. No contact information such as emails or phone numbers found.
  5. Website uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) mentioned in meta tags, which may pose security risks if still in use.
  6. Multiple Google tracking scripts are present indicating user analytics and tracking.
  7. No visible business or company information on the page.
  8. Content is minimal and focused solely on bot mitigation.
  9. No security headers or HTTPS status information available from provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 as indicated in meta tags, which are significantly outdated and may expose the site to security risks. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. The HTML content is well-structured with responsive design elements but limited to a CAPTCHA challenge page. No information about hosting provider or server configuration is available. Performance is moderate given the minimal content, and mobile optimization is basic. Accessibility features are minimal but present. SEO optimization is basic with meta tags present but no rich structured data or Open Graph tags. The site is currently inaccessible beyond the security challenge, limiting further technical assessment.
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 mazsalacasvsk.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 mazsalacasvsk.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.