Skip to main content

Security report for raum.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

68/100

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

The website raum.lv currently serves a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page, blocking direct access to its content. This indicates that the site is protected against automated bots and potentially malicious traffic, but also means no business or product information is directly accessible. The site uses outdated CMS versions as indicated by meta tags, which may pose security risks if these are actually in use. The technical infrastructure includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. However, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact information is available, limiting trust and transparency. The security posture shows some strengths in bot mitigation but lacks modern security headers and clear compliance indicators. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible without CAPTCHA completion, limiting comprehensive analysis and lowering trust and credibility scores.

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 raum.lv

This scan found 17 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. 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
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
68

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 security challenge page and lack of accessible content, no clear business information, market positioning, or revenue model can be determined. The site appears to be protected by BitNinja, a security service, suggesting prior security concerns or abuse. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links are present. The meta tags reference Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated CMS platforms, possibly indicating legacy infrastructure or misconfiguration. No partnerships or related domains are identified. The lack of privacy and cookie policies further reduces business credibility.

Security posture

The site employs Google reCAPTCHA v2 and BitNinja security challenge to prevent automated access, which is a positive security measure. However, the absence of security headers, outdated CMS references, and lack of visible privacy or security policies indicate gaps in security maturity. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, preventing verification of domain legitimacy and registrant information. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found. The security score is moderate but limited by the blocking mechanism and lack of transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Update CMS platforms to supported and secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add modern security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance security posture.
  4. Provide clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and transparency.
  5. Review and optimize technical infrastructure for performance, accessibility, and SEO improvements.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website is serving a BitNinja security CAPTCHA challenge page blocking direct access until CAPTCHA is solved. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This website is currently serving a security CAPTCHA challenge page to validate visitors and prevent automated/bot access. It is not presenting business or product information.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • Security challenge page to prevent automated access

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently inaccessible without solving CAPTCHA
  2. No business or contact information is presented
  3. Meta tags indicate use of very outdated CMS versions
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers found
  6. Use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager present
  7. No social media or external business links found
  8. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit
  9. Site likely protected by BitNinja security service
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated by meta tags, which are outdated and potentially insecure. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The site is protected by BitNinja security challenge, which blocks access until CAPTCHA completion. No modern security headers or advanced SEO features are detected. The site shows basic mobile optimization and accessibility. The overall technical implementation is basic with significant room for modernization and security enhancements.
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 raum.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 raum.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.