Skip to main content

Security report for mersrags.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

63/100

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

The website mersrags.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, which blocks direct content access. This indicates the site is protected against automated or potentially malicious traffic. The page content is minimal and serves solely as an anti-robot validation gateway, with no visible business or contact information. The site uses legacy CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal) in meta tags, suggesting outdated or placeholder content. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts are present, indicating some level of user tracking. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing domain registration analysis. Overall, the site lacks privacy, cookie, and terms of service disclosures, and no contact or business details are provided, limiting trust and transparency.

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

7 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

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

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

Keep watching mersrags.lv

This scan found 19 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. 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
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
63

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

Due to the absence of business-related content and contact information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The site appears to function primarily as a security gateway rather than a commercial or informational platform. There are no indications of market positioning, business model, or target audience beyond general web visitors. The presence of BitNinja security measures suggests a focus on protecting backend infrastructure from abuse or attacks.

Security posture

The security posture is characterized by the use of BitNinja's CAPTCHA challenge to mitigate automated threats, which is a positive security control. However, the lack of visible security headers, absence of privacy and cookie policies, and unavailability of WHOIS data reduce transparency and trust. The site uses HTTPS as implied by external script sources, but SSL configuration details are unknown. The presence of Google reCAPTCHA v2 is a good practice for bot mitigation. Overall, security controls are partially implemented but lack comprehensive transparency and best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly disclose privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible and domain registration details are transparent to enhance legitimacy.
  3. Add contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and security posture.
  4. Verify and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS.
  5. Modernize CMS and technology stack to reduce technical debt and improve performance and security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website is presenting a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page blocking direct access to content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 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 BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  4. No contact information or business details are present on the page.
  5. Website uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal) in meta tags, possibly legacy or placeholder content.
  6. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts are present indicating tracking.
  7. No security headers detected in the HTML content.
  8. The page is minimal and serves only as a bot validation gateway.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal) in meta tags, which may indicate outdated infrastructure or placeholder content. The presence of Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts shows integration of standard analytics tools. Google reCAPTCHA v2 is implemented for bot mitigation. The page is mobile responsive to a basic degree but lacks rich content and navigation. No advanced frameworks or modern JavaScript libraries are detected. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. The site is hosted behind BitNinja security services, which provide WAF and bot protection. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and focused on security gating rather than content delivery.
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 mersrags.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 mersrags.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.