Skip to main content

Security report for sapnisparbrivibu.lv

ZAUDĒTAIS SAPNIS PAR BRĪVĪBU · Government · Latvia

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website sapnisparbrivibu.lv serves as an informational platform related to the Latvian War Museum, focusing on the historical narrative of Latvian soldiers issued by the Swedish government to the Soviet Union. The site targets visitors interested in Latvian military history and related educational content. The business model is primarily informational, with no evident commercial transactions or services. The website is small in scale and localized to Latvia. Technically, the site is built using React and Material-UI, indicating a modern frontend framework. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support critically undermines the site's security and trustworthiness. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 3.1 seconds, and mobile optimization is basic. SEO and accessibility features are minimal. From a security perspective, the site lacks fundamental protections such as HTTPS, DMARC, DNSSEC, and proper SSL configurations. While HSTS is enabled, it is ineffective without HTTPS. No security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosures are present. These gaps expose the site to potential risks and reduce user trust. Overall, the website's risk profile is elevated due to missing security controls and privacy compliance. Strategic recommendations include immediate implementation of HTTPS, addition of privacy and cookie policies, and enhancement of security headers. Improving contact transparency and adding trust signals would also benefit business credibility and user confidence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 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

7 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 sapnisparbrivibu.lv

This scan found 26 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
92
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
59

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 website represents a niche informational resource linked to the Latvian War Museum, focusing on a specific historical topic. Its market positioning is limited to educational and cultural sectors within Latvia. The business model is non-commercial, relying on content dissemination. There are no visible revenue streams or partnerships. The target audience includes historians, researchers, and museum visitors interested in Latvian-Soviet history. The site does not demonstrate growth indicators or a partnership ecosystem. Operationally, it is a small-scale digital presence with limited interactivity or user engagement features.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS and a valid SSL certificate, which is a critical vulnerability. The lack of DMARC, DNSSEC, and CAA records further reduces domain security. No incident response or security policy information is provided, indicating low maturity in security governance. The site does not employ common security best practices beyond enabling HSTS, which is ineffective without HTTPS. There are no signs of vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data, but the overall lack of security controls poses significant risks. Compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations is not evident due to missing privacy and cookie policies.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site immediately.
  2. Create and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Implement DNS security measures including DMARC, DNSSEC, and CAA records to protect domain integrity.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  5. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern React framework with Material-UI components, indicating a contemporary frontend technology stack. The page load time of approximately 3.1 seconds with 11 resources and a page size of about 1.17 MB suggests moderate performance, with room for optimization. Mobile responsiveness is basic but present. SEO metadata is minimal, with no Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data detected. The absence of analytics or tracking scripts indicates minimal user data collection. Hosting details are not explicitly identified, and no CMS is detected. The lack of HTTPS and valid SSL certificate is a major technical deficiency impacting security and user trust.
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 sapnisparbrivibu.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 sapnisparbrivibu.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.