Skip to main content

Security report for slowfood.lv

Other · N/a

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

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The domain slowfood.lv currently hosts a domain parking page indicating the domain is for sale. There is no active business content, no contact information, and no clear indication of any operational company behind the domain. The website is minimalistic, primarily serving advertisements and domain sale links. Technically, the site uses basic HTML and JavaScript with external ad scripts from Google Adsense and Youseasky, delivered via Cloudfront CDN. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, which lowers the security posture. Privacy policy exists but is basic and lacks GDPR compliance indicators. Overall, the site lacks business credibility and professional content, indicating it is not an active business website.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 100 · High
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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

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

  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 slowfood.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. 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
72
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
61

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 domain appears to be held for sale and does not represent an active business entity. There are no indications of market positioning, revenue streams, or customer engagement. The presence of multiple ad networks suggests monetization attempts through domain parking. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The lack of business information and contact details limits any meaningful business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to absence of HTTPS enforcement and missing security headers. No forms or user input fields are present, reducing attack surface but also indicating no active user engagement. The site uses third-party ad scripts which may introduce tracking and privacy concerns. No incident response or security policies are found. Overall, the site is low risk but also low trust from a security perspective.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
  3. Provide clear business contact information to improve trust and credibility.
  4. Remove or replace domain parking content with active business content if applicable.
  5. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options to enhance security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
This domain appears to be for sale; no business description or content is provided.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, JavaScript, Google Adsense Domains CAF, Cloudfront CDN, XMLHttpRequest
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense, AdsDeli
Tracking pixels
Google Adsense CAF, Youseasky
Marketing tools
Google Adsense, Youseasky
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a domain parking page with no active business content.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit exceeded error.
  3. No contact information or business details provided.
  4. Privacy policy page exists but is minimal and basic.
  5. No cookie policy or consent mechanism detected.
  6. Multiple external ad and tracking scripts present.
  7. No HTTPS enforcement or security headers detected in provided data.
  8. No forms or user input fields detected.
  9. No social media or company contact emails found.
  10. Website content is minimal and not professionally developed.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML and JavaScript, relying heavily on third-party ad scripts and Cloudfront CDN for content delivery. There is no detected CMS or advanced framework. Performance is moderate but limited by ad scripts. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO optimization is poor due to minimal content and lack of meta tags beyond a simple description. The site lacks modern technical best practices and requires modernization for active business use.
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 slowfood.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 slowfood.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.