Skip to main content

Security report for pixie.ee

Laama · Technology · Estonia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Laama is a small Estonian digital agency specializing in web design, UX/UI design, branding, graphic design, front-end development, websites, and web applications. The website serves as a minimal portfolio and contact landing page, targeting businesses or individuals seeking digital design and development services. The company appears to have been founded around 2018, consistent with the domain registration date. Technically, the website uses standard web technologies including Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Typekit for fonts. Hosting and domain registration are managed by Elkdata OÜ, a local Estonian registrar and hosting provider. The site is basic in design and content, with moderate performance and basic mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility features are minimal but present. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS as indicated by canonical URLs, but no security headers were detected in the provided data. There are no visible forms or inputs, reducing attack surface, but the absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates poor privacy compliance. No incident response or security policy information is available. The WHOIS data is consistent and legitimate, with no suspicious patterns. Overall, the website is functional but minimal, with moderate technical maturity and basic security posture. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and richer contact information would enhance 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

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

    • 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 pixie.ee

This scan found 30 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
55
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
10
Average
40

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

Laama operates as a small digital design and front-end development agency in Estonia, focusing on delivering web design, UX/UI, branding, and graphic design services. Its business model is service-oriented, targeting local and possibly regional clients needing digital presence and applications. The company leverages standard web tracking tools for marketing insights but lacks visible partnerships or certifications. The market position is that of a small, specialized agency with a straightforward portfolio approach. Growth indicators and revenue streams are not disclosed. The absence of social media links or broader digital footprint suggests a focused but limited online presence.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is basic. HTTPS is used, but no advanced security headers are present, and no privacy or cookie policies are implemented, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. The lack of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms further reduces security readiness. No visible forms reduce risk exposure, but the use of third-party tracking scripts introduces moderate user tracking concerns. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small agency website but requires enhancements to meet modern compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve security posture.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information, including security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Enhance website accessibility and mobile optimization to improve user experience and SEO.
  5. Consider adding trust indicators such as client testimonials, certifications, or social media presence to boost business credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Laama
Description
Veebidisain, UX/UI disain, bränding ja graafiline disain / front-end arendus, kodulehed ja veebirakendused
Key services
Veebidisain, UX/UI disain, Bränding, Graafiline disain, Front-end arendus, Kodulehed, Veebirakendused
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Typekit Fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by canonical URL https://www.laama.ee)
  • No visible forms or inputs to secure

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
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 simple, small digital design and front-end development agency site
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. Contact information limited to a single company email
  4. No phone numbers or physical addresses provided
  5. No social media links currently active or visible
  6. Use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager indicates moderate user tracking
  7. No visible forms or interactive elements
  8. No security headers detected in provided data
  9. WHOIS data shows domain is paid, active, and registered with a local Estonian registrar
  10. Website content is minimal but consistent with a small agency portfolio landing page
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple HTML structure with external resources including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Adobe Typekit fonts. No CMS or advanced frameworks were detected. Hosting is managed by Elkdata OÜ, an Estonian registrar and hosting provider. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. SEO is basic with meta description and canonical tags present. Accessibility features are minimal but include viewport meta tags. There is no evidence of technical debt or outdated libraries, but the lack of security headers and privacy mechanisms indicates areas for modernization and risk mitigation.
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 pixie.ee. 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 pixie.ee.

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.