Skip to main content

Security report for rto.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 a key player in the transportation and logistics sector, offering stevedoring, rail freight forwarding, and infrastructure management services. The company highlights its strategic location with excellent land and sea connectivity as a competitive advantage. The website reflects a professional digital presence with a focus on clear business messaging and user-friendly navigation. Technically, the website employs modern front-end technologies such as jQuery, Cookiebot for cookie consent management, and Google Fonts for typography. The site is mobile-optimized and uses a slider for dynamic content presentation. However, no backend or CMS technologies are explicitly detected. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in accessibility and SEO optimization. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and implements a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, no explicit security headers or policies are detected, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available. The absence of WHOIS data limits the ability to fully assess domain legitimacy, but the website content and structure suggest a legitimate business. Overall, the website presents a solid business and technical foundation with moderate privacy compliance. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing privacy and security policies, and improving accessibility and SEO to strengthen trust and 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 rto.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. 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
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention rto.lv, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
9
Employees
0
Customers
0
Third parties
9
Weak passwords
33%

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for rto.lv.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 holds a strong market position as a leading operator and investor in Latvia's port and rail freight sectors. Its business model focuses on providing essential logistics services, including stevedoring and rail freight forwarding, supported by infrastructure and utility management. The company targets businesses requiring efficient port and rail transport solutions, leveraging its strategic location. The website content emphasizes the company's operational history since 2005 and its comprehensive service offerings. Partnerships, such as with the design agency Asteroid, indicate a professional approach to branding. The absence of detailed financial or corporate structure data limits deeper business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security posture. HTTPS is used, ensuring encrypted communications. The presence of a detailed cookie consent mechanism via Cookiebot shows compliance with privacy regulations like GDPR. However, the lack of visible security headers (e.g., Content Security Policy, HSTS) and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts indicate areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site does not provide a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file, which could enhance transparency and trust. Overall, the security maturity is adequate but could benefit from formalized policies and technical enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages clearly accessible from the website to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  3. Establish and publicize an incident response and vulnerability disclosure process, including dedicated contact channels (e.g., security@ or abuse@ email addresses).
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to meet recognized standards (e.g., WCAG) and improve SEO optimization for better search engine visibility.
  5. Regularly review and update cookie and tracking practices to ensure ongoing compliance with evolving privacy regulations and user expectations.
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 transport-related services in Latvia. Since 2005, it provides stevedoring and rail freight forwarding services, infrastructure and utility management. The company emphasizes its convenient and easily accessible location with land and sea route connectivity as a reason to choose their 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
65/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

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 detected.
  2. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot with detailed categories and granular controls.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in the HTML content.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found in the provided HTML.
  5. No security policy, incident response, or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. Website uses modern front-end libraries and fonts but no CMS or backend technology is explicitly detected.
  7. Advertising and tracking are primarily via Google and Cookiebot.
  8. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error; no registrar or domain age info extracted.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with jQuery, Slick Slider for carousels, Google Fonts for typography, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The HTML structure is valid and includes responsive design elements for mobile optimization. No CMS or server-side technologies are explicitly identified. Performance is moderate, with dynamic image loading based on device screen size. Accessibility is basic, with some ARIA roles used in the cookie consent dialog. SEO metadata is minimal, with empty description and keywords meta tags. The site lacks visible security headers and advanced SEO or accessibility enhancements, indicating opportunities for technical modernization and optimization.
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 rto.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 rto.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.