Skip to main content

Security report for svc.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website svc.lv currently serves only as a security verification page implementing Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. No business-related content, contact information, or policies are present, indicating that the site is either under protection or not publicly accessible. The lack of WHOIS data due to query limits further restricts the ability to verify domain ownership or legitimacy. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation, but lacks visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation in the provided data. Overall, the site’s security posture is minimal, with key improvements needed in transparency, policy disclosure, and security hardening. The current risk assessment is high due to the inability to verify legitimacy and the presence of a blocking mechanism.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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. 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 svc.lv

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.

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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
66

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

No business intelligence can be derived from the current content as the site only displays a security challenge page. There is no information about market positioning, services, or company structure. The domain appears to be protected or restricted, which may indicate a staging environment or a site under maintenance. No partnerships or related domains are identified.

Security posture

The security posture is limited to bot protection via Google reCAPTCHA v3. No additional security headers or policies are detected. The absence of HTTPS confirmation and lack of visible security best practices reduce confidence in the site’s security maturity. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not present. The site is likely behind a generic WAF or security gateway, which blocks full content access and limits analysis.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide visible business and contact information to improve credibility and transparency.
  5. Establish vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts to demonstrate security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA v3 with minimal content and no business information, indicating WAF or bot protection. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is a minimal security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 integration.
  2. No business or contact information is present on the page.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limit error, preventing domain ownership verification.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No visible security headers or HTTPS information provided.
  6. External resources are limited to CDN and Google domains for reCAPTCHA and Bootstrap.
  7. The site is likely behind a WAF or bot protection mechanism, blocking full content access.
  8. No signs of adult or explicit content detected.
  9. Overall website quality and trust indicators are very low due to lack of content and transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot mitigation. No CMS or hosting provider information is available. The page is minimalistic, serving only as a security verification challenge, which impacts content quality and user experience negatively. Performance and SEO optimization cannot be assessed due to limited content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. The site would benefit from richer content, structured data, and improved technical SEO.
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 svc.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 svc.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.