Skip to main content

Security report for valter.lv

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

68/100

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

The website valter.lv currently serves a security CAPTCHA challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to block automated or malicious traffic. No business or product information is accessible without passing the CAPTCHA, indicating the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or security service. The page uses outdated CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are no longer supported and pose potential security risks if still in use. The technical infrastructure includes Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for bot mitigation and user tracking. However, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or business information is available on the page. WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits, limiting domain legitimacy assessment. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for normal browsing and lacks transparency and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

6 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching valter.lv

This scan found 17 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. 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
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
68

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention valter.lv, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for valter.lv right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

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 security challenge page, no direct business information, market positioning, or services are disclosed. The domain appears to be protected by BitNinja security services, suggesting a focus on security or risk mitigation. No partner or subsidiary domains are identified. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or certifications reduces business credibility and trust. The presence of outdated CMS references may indicate legacy infrastructure or lack of maintenance. No revenue streams or customer segments can be inferred from the available data.

Security posture

The website employs a BitNinja CAPTCHA challenge to prevent automated access, indicating a proactive security posture against bots and malicious traffic. Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 further supports bot mitigation efforts. However, the presence of outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) in meta tags is a significant security concern, as these versions are vulnerable and unsupported. No security headers are detected in the HTML content, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. WHOIS data is unavailable, limiting domain trust verification. Overall, the security posture is moderate due to active bot protection but weakened by legacy software indications and lack of transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Update all CMS platforms to current supported versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and enforce modern security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced site-wide with strong SSL/TLS settings.
  4. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide accessible contact information and business details to enhance credibility and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website content is a security CAPTCHA challenge page served by BitNinja, blocking access until CAPTCHA is solved. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This page is a security CAPTCHA challenge page designed to block automated or malicious traffic. It does not provide business or product information.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation
  • Security challenge page to block suspicious IPs

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by a BitNinja CAPTCHA security page.
  2. No business or product information is accessible without passing CAPTCHA.
  3. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  4. Outdated CMS versions indicated in meta tags, which may pose security risks.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  6. No contact information or business identifiers present.
  7. Use of Google Analytics and reCAPTCHA indicates some level of tracking and bot mitigation.
  8. No social media or external business-related links found.
  9. Website content and structure are minimal and focused solely on security validation.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms as indicated by meta tags (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are outdated and pose security risks. The page is a minimal security challenge interface with embedded Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics scripts for bot detection and user tracking. The HTML is valid but basic, with inline CSS styles and no advanced frameworks detected. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meaningful content and meta tags beyond the security challenge context. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not discernible from the HTML content. The site is currently inaccessible for normal browsing due to the security challenge.
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 valter.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 valter.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.