Skip to main content

Security report for nod.rip

SecureSmall · Other · Latvia

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

SecureSmall is a Latvian-based small business specializing in practical security consulting services tailored for small companies with fewer than 20 employees. Their offerings include security workshops, phishing simulations, security assessments, policy development, incident response planning, and ongoing consultation. The company positions itself as an affordable alternative to expensive enterprise penetration tests, focusing on real-world security advice and training. The website content is professional, clear, and targeted specifically at small businesses in Latvia, with bilingual capabilities in Latvian and English. From a technical perspective, the website uses standard modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. The site is mobile-optimized and well-structured with good SEO meta tags and Open Graph data. However, no advanced frameworks or CMS platforms are detected, and no hosting provider information is available. Performance is moderate with basic accessibility features. Security posture is moderate; HTTPS is implied but no explicit security headers are detected. The site lacks published privacy and cookie policies, which impacts privacy compliance scores. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response contact information is provided. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to the TLD not being supported by WHOIS queries, limiting domain ownership verification. Nevertheless, the website content and contact information support legitimacy. Overall, SecureSmall presents a credible small business security consulting service with room for improvement in privacy compliance, security best practices, and transparency regarding domain registration and incident response. Strategic recommendations include publishing privacy and cookie policies, implementing security headers, and adding vulnerability disclosure mechanisms to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

6 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching nod.rip

This scan found 17 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
62
Security headers
95
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
64

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention nod.rip, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for nod.rip right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

SecureSmall operates in a niche market providing cybersecurity consulting services specifically tailored for small businesses in Latvia. Their competitive advantage lies in offering affordable, practical security solutions without the high costs associated with enterprise-level penetration testing. The business model is service-based, focusing on workshops, simulations, assessments, and policy development. Target customers are small companies lacking dedicated IT security staff. The company emphasizes local market knowledge and bilingual service delivery. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The website content and branding are consistent and professional, supporting a trustworthy market presence. Revenue streams likely derive from consulting fees and training sessions. Growth indicators are not explicitly stated but the focused service offering suggests a stable niche positioning.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of SecureSmall is moderate. The website uses HTTPS URLs for images and Open Graph tags, indicating SSL usage, but explicit SSL configuration details and security headers are absent. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. The site lacks published privacy and cookie policies, which is a compliance gap under GDPR. Incident response planning is offered as a service but no direct contact channels for security incidents are provided on the site. There is no vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file, limiting transparency for security researchers. The security culture is implied through service offerings focused on employee training and phishing simulations, which is positive. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small business consultancy but could be improved with better compliance documentation and security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add explicit HTTPS enforcement and verify SSL/TLS configuration for best practices.
  4. Provide clear incident response contact information and consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and consider adding analytics with privacy-respecting configurations to improve user insights.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SecureSmall
Description
Practical security consulting for small businesses in Latvia.
Key services
Security Workshops, Phishing Simulations, Security Assessments, Policy Development, Incident Response Planning, Ongoing Consultation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS implied by og:url and twitter:image URLs using https

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is focused on practical security consulting for small businesses in Latvia.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. Contact information is clearly provided including email and contact form.
  5. No phone numbers or social media links detected.
  6. No security certifications or compliance frameworks mentioned.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file found.
  8. Technical implementation is basic but functional with modern HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.
  9. No external analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  10. No suspicious or unrelated external domains linked.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using standard HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript without reliance on major CMS or frameworks. The site includes well-structured meta tags for SEO and social media sharing (Open Graph and Twitter Cards). Performance is moderate with no heavy external scripts detected. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design elements. Accessibility is basic but could be improved with ARIA attributes and better keyboard navigation support. No analytics or tracking scripts were found, indicating minimal user tracking. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not disclosed. The site lacks advanced security headers and explicit SSL configuration details, which are areas for technical improvement.
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 nod.rip. 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 nod.rip.

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.