Skip to main content

Security report for salonsjasmine.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

69/100

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

The website salonsjasmine.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a security challenge page implemented by BitNinja, which blocks direct content access. The visible content is minimal, showing a loading animation and a message indicating an automatic redirect. The site references very outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are known to have multiple security vulnerabilities. No business, contact, or policy information is available, and WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits. This severely limits the ability to assess the legitimacy and operational status of the website. The technical infrastructure appears outdated and lacks modern security and privacy features. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile and is likely under protection or inactive.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

5 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

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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

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

Keep watching salonsjasmine.lv

This scan found 18 issues across 5 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
72
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
69

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Due to the lack of accessible content and absence of business information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The site does not provide any contact details, company name, or service descriptions. The only external link is to the BitNinja security service, indicating the use of a third-party security provider. The presence of legacy CMS versions suggests the site may be abandoned or poorly maintained, which negatively impacts market positioning and credibility.

Security posture

The security posture is weak based on the visible evidence. The site uses a WAF/security challenge by BitNinja, which provides some protection against automated attacks. However, the underlying CMS versions are outdated and vulnerable. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement are visible in the provided content. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating poor compliance with data protection regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not found. Overall, the site is at risk of exploitation if the WAF is bypassed.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade the CMS to the latest supported versions to eliminate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact information and business details to improve credibility.
  5. Configure security headers and conduct regular security audits to enhance protection.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page shows a security check with automatic redirect and BitNinja security check branding, indicating a WAF or security challenge page blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Joomla!
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • BitNinja security check

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a security check page with automatic redirect.
  2. No meaningful business or contact information is available on the page.
  3. CMS versions indicated are very outdated and vulnerable.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links detected.
  6. Only external link is to BitNinja security service.
  7. No SSL or security headers information available from provided data.
  8. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  9. Website appears inactive or under protection with minimal accessible content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, both of which are obsolete and unsupported. The HTML content is minimal and primarily serves as a security challenge page with JavaScript-based redirect. No modern frameworks or analytics tools are detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features. Performance is likely slow due to the blocking mechanism and outdated technology. The hosting provider is not identifiable from the data. Technical debt is high, and modernization is necessary to ensure operational stability and security.
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 salonsjasmine.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 salonsjasmine.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.