Skip to main content

Security report for tas.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

52/100

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

The website at tasbaltics.lv currently serves as a security checkpoint page rather than a functional business site. It is protected by BitNinja's security service, which has placed the visitor IP on a greylist, requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed. This indicates prior security concerns or suspicious activity associated with the domain or its visitors. The site uses outdated CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, suggesting legacy or misconfigured infrastructure. Google Analytics is implemented for visitor tracking. No business information, contact details, or privacy policies are present, limiting the ability to assess the business or compliance posture. The lack of HTTPS and security headers further weakens the site's security stance. Overall, the site is inaccessible for normal browsing and appears to be under active security restrictions.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching tas.lv

This scan found 14 issues across 5 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
0
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
52

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 absence of business content, contact information, or corporate identifiers, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be either inactive, under maintenance, or blocked due to security issues. There is no evidence of market positioning, revenue streams, or partnerships. The presence of BitNinja's security challenge suggests the domain may have been involved in activities triggering automated security defenses.

Security posture

The security posture is weak. The site lacks HTTPS, security headers, and publicly available security or privacy policies. The presence of a BitNinja greylist CAPTCHA indicates prior security incidents or suspicious behavior. While the use of Google reCAPTCHA is a positive control against automated abuse, the overall security configuration is minimal. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site is effectively blocked for normal users until CAPTCHA validation is completed, limiting accessibility but also indicating active security enforcement.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure communications.
  2. Update CMS and plugins to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and trust.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Provide visible contact information and business details to enhance credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. Site is blocked by BitNinja greylist with CAPTCHA challenge to verify visitor is not a robot. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Website shows a CAPTCHA challenge page to verify visitor is not a robot. No business description present.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Analytics, reCAPTCHA
Frameworks
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by BitNinja security service requiring CAPTCHA validation.
  2. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or business details present on the page.
  5. Site uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5 mentioned in meta tags).
  6. Google Analytics is used for tracking.
  7. No HTTPS detected; site accessed via HTTP.
  8. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  9. Content is minimal and only serves as a security challenge page.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated by meta tags, which are outdated and potentially insecure. Google Analytics is integrated via gtag.js for visitor tracking. The site employs Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. The HTML and CSS are basic with minimal content, primarily serving as a CAPTCHA challenge page. No advanced frameworks or modern hosting details are evident. The site lacks HTTPS and security headers, which are critical for modern web security. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no evident enhancements. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears outdated and minimal, with significant modernization needed.
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 tas.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 tas.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.