Skip to main content

Security report for vannavanna.lv

Other · N/a

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

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website vannavanna.lv currently serves a security challenge page powered by BitNinja, designed to block automated or suspicious traffic via CAPTCHA validation. No actual business content or services are presented on this page, indicating that the site is either under protection due to prior abuse or is inaccessible without passing the security check. The technical infrastructure includes legacy CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) and modern tracking tools such as Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. The security posture shows basic bot mitigation but lacks visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers, which are critical for modern web security. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, as well as contact information, limits the ability to assess business credibility and compliance. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for normal users without CAPTCHA validation, resulting in a low trust and quality score.

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

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 vannavanna.lv

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
62

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

Due to the security challenge page and lack of accessible content, no concrete business intelligence can be derived. There are no visible company identifiers, contact details, or service descriptions. The presence of BitNinja security measures suggests the domain may have experienced prior security incidents or abuse. The site does not display any partnerships or subsidiaries. The business model and market positioning remain unknown.

Security posture

The site employs BitNinja's CAPTCHA-based bot mitigation, which is a positive security measure against automated abuse. However, the lack of HTTPS enforcement visibility, absence of security headers, and outdated CMS references indicate potential vulnerabilities. No incident response or security policy information is available. The security score is low due to these gaps and the inability to fully analyze the site behind the WAF. The site should enhance TLS configuration, implement security headers, update CMS software, and provide clear security policies to improve posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong TLS configuration to secure all traffic.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Update CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  4. Provide clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and trust.
  5. Publish contact and incident response information to enhance transparency and security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. Page is a security challenge CAPTCHA by BitNinja indicating IP greylisting and bot mitigation. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Drupal, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA v2
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation

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 content is a security CAPTCHA challenge page by BitNinja.
  2. No actual business content or services are presented on this page.
  3. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No contact information or business identifiers present.
  6. Uses outdated CMS references (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) in meta tags, possibly legacy or placeholder.
  7. Includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager scripts for tracking.
  8. No visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers detected in provided data.
  9. Page is designed to block automated access and requires CAPTCHA validation.
  10. No suspicious external domains detected beyond known Google and BitNinja domains.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) as indicated in meta tags, which are outdated and potentially insecure. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot mitigation. The page is a security challenge page served by BitNinja, blocking normal access until CAPTCHA is solved. Performance is moderate, with basic mobile optimization and accessibility. SEO optimization is poor due to minimal content and no meta tags beyond basic keywords and description. The hosting provider is not identified. The site requires modernization and improved technical hygiene.
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 vannavanna.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 vannavanna.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.