Skip to main content

Security report for r21vs.lv

Rīgas 21. vidusskola · Education · Latvia

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rīgas 21. vidusskola is a public secondary school located in Riga, Latvia, providing general education services primarily to local students and their families. The website serves as an informational portal offering updates on admissions, school news, student services such as e-cards, and COVID-19 related educational guidelines. The institution appears to be well integrated with official Riga city and Latvian educational portals, enhancing its credibility within the local education sector. Technically, the website uses PHP and JavaScript with a cookie consent library to comply with privacy regulations. However, the site shows basic technical implementation with limited modern frameworks or CMS usage and lacks visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement information in the provided data. Security posture is moderate with cookie consent implemented but missing advanced security practices. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, limiting domain trust verification. Overall, the site is functional and serves its educational purpose but would benefit from improved security and technical modernization.

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

9 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. 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

  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 r21vs.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. 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
30
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
56

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

The school operates as a medium-sized public educational institution targeting students and parents in Riga. Its business model is non-commercial, focusing on providing education and related services. The website links extensively to official government and educational resources, indicating strong partnerships and alignment with public sector standards. The absence of commercial advertising or affiliate programs aligns with its public service nature. Growth indicators include active admission campaigns and updates on educational projects. The partnership ecosystem includes Riga city portals, educational content providers, and digital learning platforms. Strategic observations suggest opportunities for digital transformation and enhanced security compliance to improve trust and user experience.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is basic. The presence of a cookie consent banner indicates awareness of privacy compliance. However, the lack of visible HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests gaps in security best practices. No incident response or security policy information is found, and no security.txt file is present. The website does not expose sensitive data or show signs of vulnerabilities in the provided content, but the absence of modern security controls poses potential risks. Compliance with GDPR is partially addressed through privacy policy and cookie consent but could be improved with clearer data protection officer contact and incident response procedures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with HSTS to secure all communications.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency.
  4. Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosures.
  5. Modernize the website's technical stack and improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Rīgas 21. vidusskola
Description
Rīgas 21. vidusskola is a Latvian educational institution providing general secondary education, including admission information, school news, and student services.
Key services
General secondary education, Admission to 1st and 10th grades, Student e-card information, School news and events, COVID-19 related educational guidelines
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
PHP, JavaScript, GlowCookies library
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a public school site for Rīgas 21. vidusskola in Latvia.
  2. Content is primarily in Latvian language.
  3. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  4. Cookie consent banner present and functional.
  5. No visible security headers or HTTPS enforcement info in provided data.
  6. No forms with sensitive data detected in HTML content.
  7. Multiple external links to official government and educational domains.
  8. No social media links explicitly found except Facebook link to official SPKC page.
  9. Contact info includes official email and phone numbers with clear context.
  10. No terms of service page detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses PHP and JavaScript with a third-party cookie consent library (GlowCookies). The HTML content is encoded in windows-1257 charset and includes basic meta tags for SEO and language. No modern CMS or frameworks are detected. External resources are loaded from trusted domains such as jsdelivr and Google Docs/Drive for document hosting. Performance appears moderate with static content and images but lacks advanced optimization or responsive design features. Accessibility and SEO are basic, with room for improvement in semantic markup and mobile optimization. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not available from the provided data.
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 r21vs.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 r21vs.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.