Skip to main content

Security report for svpetera.lv

Rīgas Svētā Pētera baznīcas nodibinājums · Non-profit · Latvia

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rīgas Svētā Pētera baznīcas nodibinājums is a non-profit foundation managing the historic St. Peter's Church in Riga, Latvia. The organization focuses on cultural heritage preservation and hosts concerts and events at the church. The website provides visitors with information about upcoming concerts, ticket pricing, and general foundation details. The target audience includes local and international visitors interested in cultural events and heritage tourism. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Salient theme and WPBakery Page Builder, incorporating common web technologies such as jQuery and Google Fonts. The site is mobile-optimized with moderate performance and basic accessibility features. HTTPS is enforced, ensuring secure communication, but lacks advanced security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled but missing important security headers and privacy/cookie policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The absence of WHOIS data limits the ability to fully verify domain legitimacy, though the site content and contact details suggest a legitimate non-profit entity. Overall, the website is functional and professional for its purpose but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, security hardening, and transparency regarding data protection and incident response. These improvements would strengthen trust and regulatory adherence.

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

8 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

  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"

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

Keep watching svpetera.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
62
Security headers
30
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
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 foundation operates in the non-profit cultural sector, focusing on heritage preservation and event hosting. Its market position is local and community-oriented, serving visitors and cultural event attendees. The business model relies on organizing concerts and promoting the church as a cultural venue. Revenue streams likely include ticket sales and donations. The organization maintains an active social media presence to engage its audience. Growth indicators are not explicit but the website content suggests ongoing event activity. The partnership ecosystem includes social media platforms but no explicit business partners or subsidiaries are identified.

Security posture

The website's security maturity is basic. HTTPS is properly implemented, ensuring encrypted data transmission. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which limits transparency and preparedness. Privacy and cookie policies are missing, indicating potential GDPR compliance gaps. No analytics or tracking scripts beyond standard WordPress components were detected, minimizing privacy risks. Overall, the site is secure enough for informational purposes but requires improvements to meet higher security and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection.
  3. Publish vulnerability disclosure and incident response information to increase transparency and readiness.
  4. Regularly monitor and update WordPress and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility and SEO features to improve user experience and discoverability.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Rīgas Svētā Pētera baznīcas nodibinājums
Registration number
LV40008310781
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Rīgas Svētā Pētera baznīcas nodibinājums
Description
Rīgas Svētā Pētera baznīca is a non-profit foundation managing the historic St. Peter's Church in Riga, Latvia. The website provides information about upcoming concerts, ticket prices, and general information about the church and foundation activities.
Key services
Hosting concerts and cultural events, Providing visitor information, Promoting heritage preservation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, WPBakery Page Builder, Salient Theme, Google Fonts, Font Awesome
Frameworks
WPBakery Page Builder
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error; no registrar or domain age info extracted.
  3. Website uses WordPress CMS with Salient theme and WPBakery builder.
  4. Contact information including phone, email, and physical address is clearly provided.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  6. No explicit security policies or incident response information present.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond standard WordPress and theme scripts.
  8. Content is focused on cultural events and heritage preservation, safe for general audiences.
  9. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected.
  10. SSL is enabled and HTTPS is used site-wide.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with the Salient theme and WPBakery Page Builder, indicating a standard and maintainable infrastructure. The tech stack includes jQuery, Font Awesome, and Google Fonts, which are common and well-supported. Performance is moderate with no major issues detected, and mobile optimization is good. However, the site lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the data. There is no evidence of CDN or advanced caching mechanisms. The site would benefit from performance optimization and enhanced technical SEO to improve reach and user engagement.
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 svpetera.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 svpetera.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.