Skip to main content

Security report for pavilabaznica.lv

Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website www.pavilabaznica.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to block automated or suspicious visitors. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or security service that restricts access to potentially malicious traffic. No business or service information is presented on this page, and the site appears to be inaccessible for normal user browsing without passing the CAPTCHA. The page references outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, which are known to have security vulnerabilities if used in production. Technically, the site uses Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation and Google Analytics for tracking, but lacks visible modern security headers or HTTPS enforcement details in the provided data. The overall technical implementation is basic with moderate performance and limited mobile optimization. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, and no contact or business information is available, limiting trust and credibility. From a security perspective, the presence of a BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge is a positive indicator of active security controls, but the use of outdated CMS versions and lack of visible security headers are concerns. The site’s privacy compliance is poor due to missing policies and consent mechanisms. The overall risk is elevated due to limited transparency and potential vulnerabilities associated with legacy software. Strategically, the site requires modernization of its CMS platform, implementation of comprehensive security headers, clear privacy and cookie policies, and improved transparency with contact and business information. These steps will enhance trust, compliance, and security posture, enabling safer and more reliable user access.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

10 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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"

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

Keep watching pavilabaznica.lv

This scan found 23 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
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
  • 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 site being blocked by a security CAPTCHA, no direct business information or market positioning can be derived. The site appears to be a protected web property possibly related to a business or organization that requires bot mitigation. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or business descriptions limits insights into revenue streams, target customers, or partnerships. The presence of BitNinja security services suggests a focus on cybersecurity and protection against automated threats. No evidence of partnerships, subsidiaries, or parent companies is found in the content.

Security posture

The security posture shows active use of a WAF/security service (BitNinja) with CAPTCHA challenges to prevent automated abuse. However, the site references outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are vulnerable and unsupported, posing significant security risks if still in use. No security headers (e.g., CSP, HSTS) are visible, and HTTPS enforcement cannot be confirmed. Privacy and cookie policies are missing, indicating compliance gaps. The use of Google reCAPTCHA is a positive control for bot mitigation. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires urgent updates and policy implementations to reduce risk.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade CMS platforms to current, supported versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configurations.
  3. Add comprehensive security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance and consent mechanisms.
  5. Provide visible contact information and business details to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge blocking access to the requested content, indicating WAF/security mechanism is active. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page designed to block automated or suspicious visitors. It does not provide business or service information.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA v2
Frameworks
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • IP greylisting and CAPTCHA challenge via BitNinja

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a security CAPTCHA challenge from BitNinja.
  2. No business or contact information is presented on this page.
  3. CMS versions indicated are outdated and insecure if used in production.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. Use of Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA indicates some tracking and bot mitigation.
  6. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement information available.
  7. Page is not accessible for normal content analysis due to WAF blocking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated in meta tags, which are outdated and pose security risks. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking and uses Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The page is styled with custom CSS and JavaScript for language translation and adaptive UI colors. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. No modern frameworks or hosting provider details are evident. The site is currently blocked by a BitNinja security CAPTCHA, limiting content access and analysis.
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 pavilabaznica.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 pavilabaznica.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.