Skip to main content

Security report for rigaspieminekli.lv

Rīgas pieminekļu aģentūra · Government · Latvia

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

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rīgas pieminekļu aģentūra is a government agency responsible for the coordination, planning, management, and execution of activities related to the inventory, maintenance, and restoration of monuments and memorials in Riga, Latvia. The agency focuses on preserving cultural heritage objects including memorials, sculptures, fountains, and environmental installations. The website serves as an informational portal for residents and visitors interested in Riga's monuments and related events. Technically, the website is built using standard HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript with jQuery 1.11.1. It employs Matomo analytics configured to respect user privacy by disabling cookies and honoring DoNotTrack signals. The site includes a cookie consent mechanism via cookiecuttr but lacks explicit privacy and terms of service pages. The design is consistent and professional, though mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. From a security perspective, the site does not expose sensitive data or forms but lacks visible security headers and explicit HTTPS confirmation in the provided data. The Matomo analytics setup shows privacy-conscious configuration. No incident response or security policy information is published, which is a gap for organizational security posture. Overall, the website is functional, trustworthy, and serves its informational purpose well but would benefit from enhanced security headers, explicit privacy and terms policies, and improved mobile and accessibility features to strengthen compliance and user trust.

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 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 rigaspieminekli.lv

This scan found 30 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. 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
54
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
54

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 agency operates as an essential government entity focused on cultural heritage preservation within Riga. Its market position is authoritative and official, with no direct competitors in its niche. The business model is service-oriented, funded by municipal resources, targeting local citizens, tourists, and cultural organizations. The website content and structure indicate a focus on transparency and public engagement through news, calendar events, and monument information. Partnerships appear limited to service providers such as the website developer (firstmove.lv). Growth indicators are not evident from the site, but the agency maintains a stable presence with consistent branding and content quality.

Security posture

The security maturity level is basic to moderate. The site uses Matomo analytics with privacy-respecting settings, which is a positive indicator. However, the absence of security headers like CSP, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS reduces the overall security posture. No forms with sensitive inputs reduce attack surface, but lack of HTTPS confirmation is a concern. No published security policies or incident response contacts limit transparency and readiness. Compliance with GDPR is partial, with cookie consent but no privacy policy. The security culture appears minimal but not negligent.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce HSTS to secure all communications.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide explicit incident response contact information and consider publishing a security policy to enhance transparency.
  5. Upgrade technical stack components like jQuery to supported versions and improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility features.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Rīgas pieminekļu aģentūra
Description
Rīgas pieminekļu aģentūras galvenais uzdevums ir koordinēt, plānot, vadīt un īstenot darbus, kas saistīti ar pieminekļu uzskaiti, uzturēšanu un atjaunošanu. Atjaunojam, uzturam un sargājam Rīgas memoriālus, pieminekļus, skulptūras, piemiņas zīmes, strūklakas un vides objektus.
Key services
Monument inventory management, Maintenance and restoration of monuments, Preservation of memorials, sculptures, fountains, and environmental objects
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, jQuery 1.11.1, Matomo Analytics, cookiecuttr
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • Matomo analytics configured with DoNotTrack and cookie disabling
  • No cookies set by Matomo due to configuration

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

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 detected
  2. Content is in Latvian language targeting local audience
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service pages found
  4. Cookie consent mechanism present via cookiecuttr
  5. Contact email provided with official Riga city domain
  6. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly found
  7. No social media links detected
  8. Matomo analytics configured with privacy-respecting settings
  9. No visible forms collecting personal data
  10. Website uses legacy jQuery version 1.11.1
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional web stack with HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript, relying on jQuery 1.11.1, which is outdated and may pose security risks. The presence of Matomo analytics configured to disable cookies and respect DoNotTrack is a positive privacy feature. The site loads external CSS and JS files including cookiecuttr for cookie consent management. No modern frameworks or CMS are detected. Performance is moderate with no explicit optimization indicators. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, suggesting room for improvement. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not available from the HTML 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 rigaspieminekli.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 rigaspieminekli.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.