Skip to main content

Security report for plavashotel.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

67/100

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

The website plavashotel.lv is currently inaccessible for normal browsing due to a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page that blocks visitors' IP addresses suspected of violating server security rules. This challenge requires users to complete a CAPTCHA to be removed from the BitNinja greylist, indicating a security-focused access control mechanism. The site content is minimal and serves only as a security checkpoint rather than a business or informational website. The technical infrastructure includes use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for tracking, with meta tags indicating legacy CMS platforms Joomla! 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, likely placeholders rather than active CMS usage. No WHOIS data could be retrieved due to query limits, limiting domain registration transparency. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or business information is available on the page.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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. 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching plavashotel.lv

This scan found 18 issues across 5 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
72
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
67

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 blocking nature of the page, no direct business information or market positioning can be discerned. The presence of BitNinja security services suggests the domain owner prioritizes security and anti-automation measures. The lack of contact details, policies, or business descriptions indicates this page is not intended for customer engagement but rather as a security gate. No partnerships or related domains are identified. The business model and sector remain unknown.

Security posture

The security posture is characterized by the use of BitNinja's greylisting and CAPTCHA challenge to prevent automated or malicious access. The site employs Google reCAPTCHA v2 to validate human visitors and uses Google Analytics for monitoring. However, no explicit security headers or SSL configuration details were found in the provided data. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and lack of WHOIS transparency reduce trust. Overall, the security measures are effective for access control but lack transparency and completeness in compliance and communication.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly display privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible and up to date to enhance domain legitimacy transparency.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen security posture.
  4. Provide clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and user confidence.
  5. Review and update CMS and technology stack to modern supported versions to reduce technical debt and security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. Page is a security CAPTCHA challenge by BitNinja indicating IP greylisting and blocking for security reasons. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page indicating the visitor's IP address has been blocked for security reasons and requires CAPTCHA validation to be removed from BitNinja's greylist.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v2, BitNinja security service
Frameworks
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5 (meta tags only)
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA to prevent automated access
  • IP greylisting via BitNinja

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
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 BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or business details present.
  5. Site uses outdated CMS meta tags (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) likely as placeholders.
  6. External scripts include Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA.
  7. No visible security headers or SSL configuration details in provided data.
  8. Website is not accessible for normal content analysis due to blocking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS meta tags referencing Joomla! 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, though the actual content is a BitNinja security CAPTCHA page. The tech stack includes JavaScript, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Google reCAPTCHA v2. The page is mobile responsive at a basic level and uses inline CSS for styling. No hosting provider or server details are evident. Performance and accessibility are basic due to the minimal content. The site lacks SEO optimization and structured data. The blocking nature of the page limits further technical 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 plavashotel.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 plavashotel.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.