Skip to main content

Security report for turaida-muzejs.lv

Īpaši aizsargājamais kultūras piemineklis – Turaidas muzejrezervāts · Government · Latvia

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

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Turaidas muzejrezervāts is a Latvian cultural heritage institution established in 1988, dedicated to preserving and showcasing the historical and archaeological heritage of the Turaida region. The website serves as an information portal for visitors, researchers, and the general public, offering details about exhibitions, educational programs, and museum services. The institution holds a reputable position in the Latvian cultural sector, supported by consistent branding and active social media engagement. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins for SEO, accessibility, and GDPR compliance. It uses standard web technologies including jQuery and MetaSlider for interactive content. The site is mobile-optimized, accessible, and includes cookie consent mechanisms, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs privacy and cookie management plugins. However, explicit security headers and incident response information are not visible, suggesting room for improvement in security transparency and policy communication. No vulnerabilities or suspicious content were detected in the analysis. Overall, the website presents a professional, trustworthy, and user-friendly platform aligned with its cultural mission. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain trust verification, but the site’s content and metadata strongly indicate legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security header implementation, publishing security policies, and maintaining up-to-date software to sustain a strong security posture.

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

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 turaida-muzejs.lv

This scan found 27 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
55

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 institution operates as a government or non-profit entity focused on cultural preservation and education. Its market positioning is stable within Latvia’s cultural heritage sector, targeting tourists, educators, and researchers. Revenue streams likely include visitor fees, educational program fees, and government or grant funding. The website supports growth through digital engagement and transparent communication. Partnerships are implied through social media and cultural networks, though no explicit business partners or subsidiaries are identified. The business model emphasizes public service and cultural education rather than commercial profit.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforcement and cookie consent compliance. The use of reputable WordPress plugins for GDPR and accessibility indicates awareness of privacy and security best practices. However, the lack of visible security headers and incident response contacts suggests gaps in security transparency and readiness. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The site would benefit from publishing a security policy and establishing a vulnerability disclosure channel to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response information on the website.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  4. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance monitoring and logging to detect and respond to security incidents promptly.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Īpaši aizsargājamais kultūras piemineklis – Turaidas muzejrezervāts
Description
Muzejrezervāts izveidots 1988. gadā uz Siguldas novadpētniecības muzeja bāzes, kas savu darbību uzsāka 1948. gadā, lai saglabātu nākamajām paaudzēm vienu no senākajiem Latvijas valstiskajiem veidojumiem – Turaidas vēsturisko centru ar kultūras pieminekļu kompleksu.
Key services
Museum exhibitions, Educational programs, Research and publications, Visitor services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.6.2, jQuery 3.7.1, MetaSlider plugin, Google Analytics (MonsterInsights), Complianz GDPR plugin, Pojo Accessibility plugin
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of accessibility and privacy plugins

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
MonsterInsights Google Analytics plugin, Facebook Pixel
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is a professionally maintained cultural heritage museum site.
  2. Content is rich, relevant, and well-structured.
  3. Good privacy and cookie compliance with consent mechanisms.
  4. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  5. WHOIS data unavailable, limiting domain trust verification.
  6. Use of modern WordPress plugins and accessibility features.
  7. Social media presence on major platforms.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.6.2, leveraging plugins like MetaSlider for image sliders, MonsterInsights for Google Analytics integration, Complianz for GDPR cookie management, and Pojo Accessibility for improved accessibility. The tech stack is modern and well-supported, ensuring good performance and mobile responsiveness. SEO is enhanced through meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Accessibility features are actively implemented, including an accessibility toolbar. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization in loading speed. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified from the HTML content.
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 turaida-muzejs.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 turaida-muzejs.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.