Skip to main content

Security report for mrm.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 mrm.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to prevent automated or malicious access. It does not present any business content or services directly, instead acting as a gatekeeper to protect backend resources. The page uses outdated CMS meta tags (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) likely as placeholders, and integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, alongside Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The lack of business information, privacy policies, or contact details limits the ability to assess the site's commercial or organizational purpose. Technically, the site shows moderate implementation with basic mobile optimization and accessibility. However, the absence of visible security headers and unknown SSL enforcement status are concerns. The security posture is partially positive due to the use of reCAPTCHA and BitNinja's security challenge but is weakened by outdated CMS references and missing security best practices. Overall, the site is blocked by a WAF security mechanism, limiting content access and analysis. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing verification of domain legitimacy or ownership. The site appears to be a security intermediary rather than a traditional business website, which explains the minimal content and lack of business-related information. Strategic recommendations include updating CMS platforms, implementing comprehensive security headers, enforcing HTTPS, and publishing clear privacy and contact 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 mrm.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

Given the nature of the page as a security CAPTCHA challenge, there is no direct business model or market positioning evident. The site acts as a security layer, likely for a protected resource or service. The presence of BitNinja branding indicates reliance on a third-party security provider specializing in cybercrime prevention. No revenue streams, partnerships, or customer segments are identifiable from the content. The business intelligence is limited to recognizing the site’s role in cybersecurity and bot mitigation.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate due to the integration of BitNinja's security challenge and Google reCAPTCHA v2, which help mitigate automated attacks and bot traffic. However, the site lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options in the provided data. The outdated CMS meta tags suggest potential underlying vulnerabilities if those platforms are in use. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident. Overall, the site demonstrates basic security controls but requires improvements in modern security best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Update all CMS and platform components to supported, secure versions to eliminate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and verify comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Enforce HTTPS site-wide and ensure SSL/TLS configurations follow best practices.
  4. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to enhance compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide accessible contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The page is a security CAPTCHA challenge by BitNinja indicating visitor IP is greylisted and requires CAPTCHA validation to proceed. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page to validate visitors and prevent automated/bot access.
Content quality
basic
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
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • Security check page to prevent automated access

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
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security CAPTCHA challenge by BitNinja.
  2. No business or contact information is provided on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found.
  4. The site uses outdated CMS meta tags but likely only as a placeholder or default.
  5. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  6. External scripts include Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA.
  7. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement data in provided content.
  8. The page is designed to prevent automated/bot access and protect backend resources.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and potentially insecure if actively used. The page is a security challenge interface powered by BitNinja, incorporating Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot detection and Google Analytics/Tag Manager for tracking. The HTML structure is valid but minimal, focusing on the CAPTCHA form. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. No advanced frameworks or hosting provider details are discernible. Performance is moderate given the limited content. The site lacks SEO optimization and comprehensive metadata. Technical debt is indicated by outdated CMS references and missing security headers, suggesting 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 mrm.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 mrm.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.