Skip to main content

Security report for navuzticibas.com

Other · Latvia

Medium risk. 11 critical or high findings in Email security, DNS health and 3 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.navuzticibas.com is a Latvian language platform that allows users to submit and browse complaints about individuals and companies. It serves as a niche community-driven site focused on sharing negative experiences and warnings, primarily targeting Latvian consumers seeking trustworthiness information. The site’s business model revolves around user-generated content without clear monetization or corporate backing. Technically, the site uses basic web technologies including jQuery and Google Fonts, with minimal SEO and accessibility features. The site lacks HTTPS and security headers, indicating a weak security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no verified contact emails or phone numbers are provided, which reduces business credibility. The WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, raising concerns about domain legitimacy. Overall, the site is functional but basic, with significant security and compliance gaps.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

11 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Critical

      DNS Resolution Failed

      Unable to resolve domain A records

      What to do: Verify domain is properly configured and not expired

  3. 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 navuzticibas.com

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
75
Security headers
20
Email security
60
DNS health
20
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
52

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

The platform occupies a niche position in the Latvian market as a complaints repository, potentially useful for consumers but lacking formal business structure or transparency. There are no visible certifications, privacy policies, or contact details that would enhance trust. The absence of WHOIS data and domain registration details suggests either a new or unregistered domain, which undermines credibility. The site does not appear to have partnerships or subsidiaries. Its revenue model is unclear, and no advertising or analytics services are detected. The target audience is local Latvian consumers interested in consumer protection or warnings about businesses and individuals.

Security posture

The website’s security posture is weak. There is no evidence of HTTPS usage or security headers, which exposes users to potential interception or manipulation. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. The site collects user input via forms but lacks visible anti-bot or input validation measures. The missing WHOIS data further complicates trust and accountability. Overall, the site is vulnerable to common web threats and lacks a mature security framework.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user data and improve trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Introduce CAPTCHA or other anti-bot mechanisms on forms to prevent spam and abuse.
  5. Obtain and publish verified WHOIS registration data to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Website hosts user-submitted complaints about individuals and companies, primarily in Latvian language. It appears to be a public platform for sharing negative reviews or warnings about persons or businesses.
Key services
Complaint submission, Complaint browsing/search
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a Latvian language platform for posting complaints about individuals and companies.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, indicating possible unregistered domain or WHOIS privacy.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed; only a contact page link.
  5. No HTTPS or security headers detected from available data; security posture is weak.
  6. Minimal external links, only to Google Fonts.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  8. Site content is user-generated complaints, some containing negative or accusatory language.
  9. No adult or explicit content detected.
  10. Site design and content quality are basic with limited SEO and accessibility features.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML with linked CSS and JavaScript files, including jQuery and Google Fonts. There is no evidence of a CMS or advanced frameworks. Performance appears moderate with no heavy scripts or external dependencies beyond fonts. Mobile optimization is basic but present via viewport meta tag. SEO is minimal with empty title and meta description tags. Accessibility features are limited. The site lacks modern security features and does not use HTTPS, which is a critical technical deficiency. The domain’s WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible registration issues or privacy protection.
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 navuzticibas.com. 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 navuzticibas.com.

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.