Skip to main content

Security report for nrja.lv

Other · N/a

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Network security and 3 other checks.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website nrja.lv appears to be a small-scale project or portfolio site, likely representing a local business or organization in Latvia. The site showcases various projects with dated content and minimal textual description. The business information is sparse, with no clear company name or detailed description, and only a single contact email is provided. The market position and business model cannot be clearly determined from the available content. Technically, the website is built with basic HTML and JavaScript, without any modern CMS or frameworks detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, and no performance or SEO enhancements are evident. There is no indication of HTTPS usage or security headers, which suggests a low level of technical maturity and security posture. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS, security headers, and privacy policies indicates significant gaps in compliance and protection. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits, limiting the ability to verify domain legitimacy and registration details. Overall, the site presents a low security posture with moderate business credibility based on the limited content. The overall risk assessment is moderate to high due to missing security controls and compliance documentation. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, adding privacy and cookie policies, improving security headers, and enhancing mobile and accessibility features to improve trust and user experience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

11 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

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 nrja.lv

This scan found 27 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
15
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
44

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 · found on this site
  • 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 business behind nrja.lv is not clearly identified, with no explicit company name or registration details available. The website functions primarily as a project showcase, possibly for a small local entity or individual. The lack of detailed business information, contact phone numbers, or social media presence limits visibility into market positioning or competitive advantages. Revenue streams and business model are not discernible. The target audience appears to be general visitors interested in the projects displayed. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. Growth indicators and strategic business insights cannot be assessed due to minimal content and lack of external references.

Security posture

The security posture of nrja.lv is weak. The site does not demonstrate use of HTTPS, lacks security headers, and has no visible privacy or cookie policies, indicating non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. The site does not collect user data via forms or analytics, which reduces exposure but also limits user engagement. The absence of modern security best practices and technical controls increases risk of data interception and undermines user trust. The lack of WHOIS data further complicates trust verification. Overall, the site requires significant improvements to meet basic security and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure data transmission.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility to enhance user experience and compliance.
  5. Establish incident response and vulnerability disclosure procedures to improve security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

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
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a small-scale project or portfolio site with dated design and minimal content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found, indicating low compliance maturity.
  3. No contact phone numbers or social media links found; only a single email contact in footer.
  4. No modern CMS or frameworks detected; site uses basic JavaScript and static HTML.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available; likely no SSL or minimal security configuration.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected, indicating minimal user tracking.
  7. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
  8. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  9. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit; domain registration details unknown.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using static HTML and basic JavaScript for image rollovers. No modern frameworks, CMS, or analytics tools are detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, with fixed width layouts and no responsive design. Performance is likely moderate given the simple structure but could be improved with modern best practices. The absence of HTTPS and security headers indicates technical debt and outdated infrastructure. There is no evidence of hosting provider or CDN usage. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and would benefit from modernization and security enhancements.
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 nrja.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 nrja.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.