SIA Salaspils Siltums · Energy · Latvia
Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.
SIA Salaspils Siltums operates as a centralized heat energy provider serving the Salaspils and Saulkalne regions in Latvia. The company offers heat production, transmission, and distribution services, targeting residential and commercial customers. Their website reflects a medium-sized utility business with a focus on energy efficiency, customer engagement, and transparent tariff information. The company maintains active social media channels and provides comprehensive customer support and information resources online. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using a modern theme and integrates common libraries such as jQuery, Fancybox, and Slick Carousel. It employs Google Fonts and Google Analytics for tracking, alongside a GDPR-compliant cookie consent mechanism. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation and SEO practices, though some accessibility features could be enhanced. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses cookie consent tools, but lacks visible security headers and published security policies or incident response information. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain legitimacy verification, but the website content and branding suggest a legitimate local business. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy digital presence for a regional energy utility. Strategic improvements in security headers, incident response transparency, and WHOIS data availability would strengthen trust and compliance posture.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google APIs
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
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.
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 21 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.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention salaspilssiltums.lv, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for salaspilssiltums.lv right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with salaspilssiltums.lv. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review salaspilssiltums.lv.