Skip to main content

Security report for velvemst.lv

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 9 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

The website velvemst.lv currently serves as a security challenge page implemented by BitNinja, requiring visitors to complete a CAPTCHA to proceed. This indicates the domain or IP has been flagged for suspicious activity or abuse, and the site is actively protecting itself from automated or malicious traffic. There is no business or commercial content presented, and no company information is available on the page. The site uses outdated CMS meta tags (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which may be remnants or placeholders but represent potential security risks if actually in use. Technically, the site integrates Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics for bot mitigation and tracking, respectively. The page is basic in design and functionality, with minimal content and limited SEO or accessibility features. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact information is provided. From a security perspective, the site benefits from BitNinja's greylist IP blocking and delisting mechanism, which is a positive control against abuse. However, the lack of visible security headers and the use of outdated CMS versions are concerns. The absence of WHOIS data due to query limits prevents a full legitimacy assessment of the domain registration. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for normal browsing without passing the CAPTCHA challenge, limiting content and business analysis. The security posture is moderate due to active bot mitigation but lacks comprehensive security best practices and transparency. Strategic recommendations include updating CMS software, implementing security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and improving accessibility and SEO.

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 velvemst.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. 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
70
DNS health
80
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

No business intelligence can be derived from the site content as it functions solely as a security challenge page. There is no indication of market positioning, revenue streams, or customer segments. The presence of BitNinja security services suggests the domain is protected against abuse but does not imply a commercial business model or partnerships. No contact or company information is available to analyze partnerships or ecosystem.

Security posture

The security posture is characterized by the use of BitNinja's greylist IP blocking and CAPTCHA challenge to prevent automated or malicious access. This is a strong indication of proactive bot mitigation. However, the site lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options, which are recommended for enhanced protection. The outdated CMS versions indicated in meta tags pose potential vulnerabilities if actually deployed. No privacy or cookie policies are present, which is a compliance gap. Incident response and security policy information are absent, limiting transparency. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate security controls but requires improvements to align with best practices and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Update the CMS software to supported, secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and configure essential security headers including Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide accessible contact information and security incident response details to enhance transparency.
  5. Improve website accessibility, SEO, and mobile optimization to enhance user experience and reach.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

BitNinja detected. The website content is a security challenge page served by BitNinja, requiring CAPTCHA validation to proceed, indicating a WAF or security filtering mechanism is active. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
This website is a security challenge page designed to block or filter visitors by requiring CAPTCHA validation to continue browsing. It is not a business or commercial site presenting products or services.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v2, BitNinja security service
Performance
moderate
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
  • BitNinja greylist IP blocking and delisting mechanism

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is not a typical business or content site but a security CAPTCHA challenge page.
  2. No contact information, privacy policy, or terms of service found.
  3. Outdated CMS versions indicated in meta tags may represent security risk if actually used.
  4. Use of BitNinja security service to block and delist IP addresses.
  5. No WHOIS data available due to query limit error.
  6. Multiple languages supported for CAPTCHA instructions.
  7. No business or company information presented.
  8. No visible security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS meta tags indicating Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and unsupported, posing security risks if in use. The integration of Google reCAPTCHA v2 and Google Analytics scripts is evident, supporting bot mitigation and analytics tracking. The page is minimalistic, serving as a security challenge rather than a content-rich site. Performance is moderate given the simple content, but SEO and accessibility are poor due to lack of meta tags and structured data. No hosting provider information is discernible. The site is mobile basic responsive but lacks advanced features or modern frameworks. Technical debt is implied by outdated CMS references and missing security headers.
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 velvemst.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 velvemst.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.