Skip to main content

Security report for sauleskolektors.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website sauleskolektors.lv is currently inaccessible beyond a security CAPTCHA challenge page implemented by BitNinja. This challenge blocks automated access and requires human validation to proceed, indicating a protective security posture against bots and potential malicious traffic. The visible content is minimal and does not provide any business-related information, contact details, or service descriptions. The site references legacy CMS platforms such as Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 in meta tags, suggesting outdated or misconfigured infrastructure. The presence of Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts indicates some level of user tracking, but no privacy or cookie policies are disclosed, limiting compliance transparency. Technically, the site uses reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation and includes multiple Google tracking scripts. However, no security headers or HTTPS status information is visible in the provided data, and WHOIS information is unavailable due to query limits, preventing domain age and registrant verification. The overall security posture is minimal, with the primary defense being the CAPTCHA challenge. The lack of accessible business information and policies, combined with the blocked content, results in a low trust and credibility rating. Strategically, the site requires modernization of its CMS and infrastructure, implementation of comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, and enhancement of security headers and HTTPS configuration. Improving content accessibility and providing clear business and contact information would significantly enhance user trust and compliance posture. Until the CAPTCHA challenge is passed, a full analysis of the actual website content and business operations is not possible.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

9 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. 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 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 sauleskolektors.lv

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
60

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

Due to the website being blocked by a security CAPTCHA challenge, no direct business information or market positioning data is available. The site appears to be related to the domain sauleskolektors.lv, which by name suggests a business possibly in solar collectors or energy sector, but no explicit business model, revenue streams, or customer segments can be confirmed from the content. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or certifications limits the ability to assess partnerships or growth indicators. The presence of legacy CMS references may indicate a small or legacy operation with limited digital maturity.

Security posture

The security posture is currently limited to a BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge that blocks automated access, which is a positive measure against bot traffic and cyber threats. However, no additional security headers or HTTPS configuration details are visible, and no privacy or incident response policies are disclosed. The absence of WHOIS data prevents verification of domain legitimacy and registrant details. The site lacks visible compliance indicators such as GDPR statements or security certifications. Overall, the security maturity appears low beyond the CAPTCHA protection, with significant room for improvement in transparency, policy publication, and technical security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and strong cipher suites.
  2. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Update or migrate from legacy CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerabilities.
  5. Provide clear business contact information and incident response contacts to enhance credibility and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. Website content is blocked by BitNinja security challenge requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA v2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
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 is currently inaccessible beyond a security CAPTCHA challenge by BitNinja.
  2. No business or contact information is publicly available on the landing page.
  3. Website uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, indicating possible legacy or misconfigured setup.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No contact emails, phone numbers, or addresses found.
  6. Security posture is minimal with only CAPTCHA protection visible.
  7. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  8. Website is not SEO optimized and lacks meaningful content.
  9. Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts are present, indicating tracking but no privacy disclosures.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms indicated by meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and potentially insecure. The site integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking and includes Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The HTML content is minimal and primarily serves as a CAPTCHA challenge page by BitNinja, blocking access to the actual site content. No modern security headers or HTTPS status are visible in the provided data. The site shows basic mobile optimization but lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. The presence of multiple Google tracking scripts without accompanying privacy disclosures indicates a gap in privacy compliance. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears legacy with limited modernization and security hardening.
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 sauleskolektors.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 sauleskolektors.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.