Skip to main content

Security report for vni.lv

Valsts nekustamie īpašumi · Government · Latvia

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

Valsts nekustamie īpašumi is a Latvian government entity responsible for managing state real estate assets. The website serves as an official portal providing information about state properties and related services. It targets Latvian citizens, government stakeholders, and real estate professionals. The business model is focused on public sector real estate management with no commercial sales or e-commerce components. The site is positioned as an authoritative source for state property information in Latvia. Technically, the website employs a modern frontend stack including Bootstrap 4.6.2, jQuery, Font Awesome, and Slick Carousel. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and uses Cookiebot for GDPR-compliant cookie consent management. The site is mobile optimized and accessible with focus-visible outlines and semantic HTML. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in SEO metadata completeness. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses anti-CSRF tokens. Cookie consent is granular and transparent. However, explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not detected. There is no published security policy or incident response contact information. WHOIS data is unavailable due to query limits, limiting domain registration trust verification. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy government portal with good privacy compliance and security posture. The main risks relate to missing explicit privacy and security policy documentation and lack of WHOIS transparency. Strategic recommendations include publishing comprehensive privacy and security policies, adding security headers, and providing incident response contacts to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching vni.lv

This scan found 17 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
77
Security headers
80
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
83

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 entity operates in the government sector managing state-owned real estate in Latvia. It holds a unique market position as the official state real estate manager, with no direct competitors in this niche. The business model is service-oriented, focusing on asset management and information dissemination rather than commercial transactions. Revenue streams are likely government-funded. The target customers include government agencies, public sector entities, and Latvian citizens interested in state property. The website ecosystem includes partnerships with Google services and Cookiebot for analytics and consent management. Growth indicators are not explicit but the site reflects stable government operations. No subsidiaries or parent companies are identified.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and anti-CSRF tokens are used to protect forms. Cookie consent is implemented with detailed categories, indicating GDPR awareness. However, the absence of key security headers reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files are found, limiting transparency for security researchers. Incident response readiness is unclear due to lack of contact information. There are no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data in the HTML. Compliance with GDPR is partially evidenced by cookie consent but lacks explicit privacy policy documentation. Overall, the security culture appears functional but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced headers.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page clearly linked from the homepage.
  2. Implement and publish a security policy including incident response contacts.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Create and host a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure.
  5. Enhance SEO metadata with descriptive meta tags and keywords to improve search visibility.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Valsts nekustamie īpašumi
Description
Valsts nekustamie īpašumi is a Latvian government entity managing state real estate assets.
Key services
State real estate management, Property administration, Real estate information dissemination
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 4.6.2, jQuery, Font Awesome 5.15.2, Slick Carousel, Cookiebot Consent Management, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls
  • Use of anti-CSRF token cookie (XSRF-TOKEN)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a Latvian government real estate portal.
  2. Content is in Latvian language.
  3. Cookie consent is implemented with detailed cookie categories.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on the main page.
  5. No privacy policy or terms of service pages explicitly linked or found.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error.
  8. Website uses modern frontend libraries and Google services.
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  10. No WAF or blocking detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a stable and modern frontend technology stack with Bootstrap 4.6.2, jQuery, Font Awesome, and Slick Carousel. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are integrated for tracking and analytics. Cookiebot is used for cookie consent management, providing GDPR compliance features. The site is responsive and includes accessibility features such as focus-visible outlines. Performance is moderate; no explicit performance optimization techniques like lazy loading or advanced caching are evident. The site lacks a detected CMS, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the HTML. Technical risks include missing security headers and incomplete SEO metadata which could impact security and discoverability.
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 vni.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 vni.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.