Skip to main content

Security report for rigaport.lv

Riga Port Group · Transportation · Latvia

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Riga Port Group is a leading Latvian company specializing in port asset management and rail freight services. Established in 2005, it operates as an infrastructure manager and service provider, offering stevedoring, rail freight forwarding, and utility services. The company highlights its strategic location with excellent land and sea connectivity, positioning itself as a preferred logistics partner in the region. The website reflects a professional digital presence with clear business descriptions and a user-friendly interface. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including jQuery, Cookiebot for cookie consent management, Google Fonts, and Slick Slider for UI elements. The site is mobile-optimized and provides a moderate performance experience. However, explicit CMS or hosting details are not evident. SEO and accessibility features are basic but functional. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and implements a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism aligned with GDPR requirements. No advanced security headers or explicit privacy policies were found in the provided content, indicating room for improvement in security posture and compliance documentation. No vulnerabilities or suspicious elements were detected in the accessible content. Overall, the website presents a credible and professional business front with moderate technical maturity and privacy compliance. The absence of WHOIS data limits full domain trust assessment, but the content and branding suggest a legitimate and established business. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing detailed privacy and security policies, and improving accessibility compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 384-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching rigaport.lv

This scan found 20 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
42
Security headers
50
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
74

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

Riga Port Group operates in the transportation sector, focusing on port and rail freight services in Latvia. Its business model centers on infrastructure management and service provision, targeting logistics companies and freight operators. The company leverages its strategic geographic location to maintain a competitive advantage. The website content emphasizes its role as a leading operator and investor, indicating a strong market position. The absence of detailed financial or partnership data limits deeper business intelligence, but the presence of a professional website and cookie compliance suggests operational maturity. The company appears to maintain a focused portfolio without publicly listed subsidiaries or parent companies.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS enforcement and a robust cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of GDPR and privacy regulations. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HSTS suggests potential gaps in defense-in-depth strategies. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, which may impact transparency and readiness perception. The absence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable scripts is positive, but continuous monitoring and enhancement of security controls are recommended to mitigate risks and comply with evolving regulations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen site security.
  2. Publish detailed privacy and security policies accessible from the website to improve transparency and compliance.
  3. Enhance accessibility features to meet recognized standards and improve user experience for all visitors.
  4. Establish and disclose incident response procedures and contact channels for security issues.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Riga Port Group
Description
Riga Port Group is the leading operator, developer, and investor of port assets and rail freight services in Latvia. Since 2005, it provides stevedoring and rail freight forwarding services and manages infrastructure and utility services. The company emphasizes its convenient and accessible location with land and sea connectivity as a reason to choose its services.
Key services
Stevedoring services, Rail freight forwarding, Infrastructure management, Utility services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Cookiebot, Google Fonts, Slick Slider
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • Cookie consent banner for GDPR compliance

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Tracking pixels
Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented and detailed.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in provided content.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
  5. Website uses modern web fonts and slider libraries for UI.
  6. No visible security headers or advanced security configurations detected in HTML.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error; no registrar or registration dates extracted.
  8. Business is clearly focused on port and rail freight services in Latvia.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with jQuery, Google Fonts, and Slick Slider for interactive elements. Cookiebot is integrated for cookie management and GDPR compliance. The site is responsive and adapts images based on device screen size, indicating attention to mobile optimization. However, no CMS or backend technology is explicitly identified. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. The absence of advanced SEO metadata and structured data limits search engine visibility. Technical debt appears low but could be improved by adopting modern frameworks and enhancing accessibility and SEO features.
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 rigaport.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 rigaport.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.