Skip to main content

Security report for ratespicerija.lv

Rātes Picērija · Hospitality · Latvia

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rātes Picērija is a small local pizza restaurant operating in Riga, Latvia, with two physical locations. The website serves primarily as a digital presence to allow customers to select their preferred location. The business targets local residents and visitors seeking pizza dining or takeaway services. The website is built on WordPress, utilizing common plugins such as Yoast SEO and Google Tag Manager for SEO and analytics purposes. The technical infrastructure is basic but functional, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and a cookie consent mechanism in place; however, the absence of security headers and explicit security policies indicates room for improvement. The lack of WHOIS data due to query limits restricts full domain legitimacy verification, but the site content aligns with a small hospitality business. Overall, the site is safe, with no adult or suspicious content detected.

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

8 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 ratespicerija.lv

This scan found 24 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
77
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
61

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 business operates in the hospitality sector, focusing on pizza services in Riga. Its market position is local and small-scale, with no indication of a larger corporate structure or subsidiaries. The business model is traditional brick-and-mortar with an online presence for customer convenience. The website content is minimal, reflecting a straightforward service offering without extensive marketing or e-commerce features. The use of Google Tag Manager suggests some level of marketing analytics, but no advanced advertising or affiliate programs are evident. The company maintains privacy and cookie policies consistent with GDPR requirements, enhancing compliance credibility. No contact emails or phone numbers are explicitly provided, which may limit direct customer engagement online.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications. A cookie consent banner is present, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. The WordPress CMS and plugins should be regularly updated to prevent exploitation. There is no visible incident response or security policy information, which could be a gap in organizational security culture. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified in the provided content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could benefit from enhanced technical controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website to enhance trust and preparedness.
  4. Enhance contact information visibility to improve customer trust and engagement.
  5. Conduct periodic security audits and penetration testing to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Rātes Picērija
Description
A pizza restaurant with two locations in Riga, Latvia, offering pizza services to local customers.
Key services
Pizza dining, Takeaway pizza
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Yoast SEO plugin, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a small local pizza restaurant site with two physical locations in Riga.
  2. Content is minimal but functional, focusing on location selection.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on homepage HTML.
  4. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  5. No visible security headers detected in provided data.
  6. Uses WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO and Google Tag Manager.
  7. No evidence of security or incident response policies.
  8. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Bootstrap and jQuery libraries for frontend functionality. SEO is managed via the Yoast SEO plugin, and Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tracking. The site loads moderate external resources and is mobile optimized with responsive design. Accessibility features are basic, with no explicit ARIA roles or advanced accessibility markup detected. Performance is moderate, with no major issues visible in the HTML content. The site lacks advanced frameworks or modern JavaScript libraries, indicating a simple technical stack suitable for a small business. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content.
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 ratespicerija.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 ratespicerija.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.