Skip to main content

Security report for rigas51.lv

Baltic Investment Group · Real Estate · Latvia

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website rigas51.lv represents a luxury residential real estate project located in Jūrmala, Latvia, developed by Baltic Investment Group. It offers fully finished two and three-room apartments and a three-story house with natural materials and modern amenities including underground parking and 24/7 security. The site targets potential home buyers seeking upscale living in a quiet, protected area close to city infrastructure and recreational facilities. Technically, the site is built on UMI CMS, uses common JavaScript libraries and tracking tools such as Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel, and is moderately optimized for mobile and performance. Security posture is average with HTTPS implied but lacking explicit security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and WHOIS transparency slightly reduce trustworthiness. Overall, the site is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security hardening.

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

10 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

  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"

    • 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';…

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

Keep watching rigas51.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
20
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
57

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

Baltic Investment Group positions itself in the niche luxury real estate market in Latvia, focusing on high-end residential complexes in desirable locations like Jūrmala. The business model centers on property development and sales with a focus on quality finishes and security features. The website content and social media presence support brand trust and customer engagement. The company appears small-sized with a localized market focus. The lack of detailed WHOIS data limits external verification of legitimacy but the consistent branding and contact information support credibility. The use of multiple marketing and tracking tools indicates an active digital marketing strategy. No direct partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the website content.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security posture. HTTPS is used, but no explicit security headers (CSP, HSTS, etc.) were detected in the provided data. There is no visible privacy policy or cookie consent mechanism, which is a compliance gap under GDPR. No forms or user input fields were found, reducing attack surface, but third-party scripts introduce potential risks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided. The site uses common tracking and chat services which should be regularly audited for security. Overall, the security posture is functional but could be improved with better header implementation, privacy compliance, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to inform users and obtain consent for tracking.
  4. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident reporting.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and update CMS and libraries to mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Baltic Investment Group
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Baltic Investment Group
Description
Luxury residential complex located in the protected area of Jūrmala, near Jomas street noise but in a quiet neighborhood. Offers two and three-room apartments with full finishing using natural materials. Also includes a separate three-story house with forest views. Amenities include underground garage with elevator, photoelement lighting, illuminated apartment number signs, facade and territory lighting, video intercoms, video surveillance, and 24/7 physical security.
Key services
Sale of fully finished apartments, Sale of three-story houses, Secure residential complex with amenities
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, jQuery UI, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, AddThis Sharing, ExitBee, JivoChat
Frameworks
UMI CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by canonical URL with http:// but likely redirects to https)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
AddThis
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, ExitBee, JivoChat
Marketing tools
AddThis
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a real estate project site for a luxury residential complex in Jūrmala, Latvia.
  2. Content is in Latvian with language switcher for English and Russian.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. Contact information is clearly provided with company email, phone, and physical office address.
  5. Multiple tracking and marketing scripts are used, but no explicit cookie consent mechanism detected.
  6. No forms detected on the main page; contact likely via email or chat widget.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error; no registrar or domain age info extracted.
  9. Site uses UMI CMS and common JavaScript libraries.
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; site fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses UMI CMS with jQuery and jQuery UI libraries, integrated with Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, AddThis sharing tools, ExitBee, and JivoChat for marketing and user engagement. The site is moderately optimized for mobile devices and has a clear navigation structure. Performance is average with some asynchronous script loading. The HTML is valid and includes meta viewport tags for responsiveness. However, accessibility features are basic and SEO optimization is minimal with empty meta keywords and description tags. The site lacks modern security headers and privacy compliance features. Hosting provider and domain registrar details are unavailable due to WHOIS query limits.
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 rigas51.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 rigas51.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.