Skip to main content

Security report for zip.lv

Zip.lv · Real Estate · Latvia

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Zip.lv is a well-established Latvian online classified ads platform, operating since 2008, offering a wide range of categories including transport, real estate, jobs, and various goods and services. The website targets Latvian-speaking users seeking a centralized marketplace for buying, selling, and exchanging items and services. It maintains a consistent brand presence and provides clear contact information and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, demonstrating good compliance with GDPR requirements. Technically, the site utilizes a variety of modern web technologies and third-party services such as jQuery, Google Fonts, FontAwesome, Google Analytics, Facebook SDK, and Stripe for payments. It is hosted behind Cloudflare, indicating a robust hosting infrastructure. However, the site suffers from a critical security issue: the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which severely impacts its security posture and user trust. The security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS, no HSTS, no security headers, and no DMARC or DNSSEC configurations. Despite this, the site employs a detailed consent management platform with extensive vendor disclosures, reflecting a strong commitment to privacy compliance and transparency. The site integrates numerous advertising and analytics vendors, indicating extensive user tracking and data collection practices. Overall, while the business and privacy compliance aspects are strong, the lack of HTTPS and related security measures present a significant risk. Addressing these security gaps is critical to improving user trust and safeguarding data. The site’s performance is slow, likely due to large page size and numerous resources, suggesting opportunities for optimization.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

8 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 zip.lv

This scan found 22 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
90
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
0
Average
49

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

Zip.lv operates as a key player in the Latvian online classifieds market, providing a broad spectrum of categories including vehicles, real estate, employment, and consumer goods. Its business model centers on facilitating peer-to-peer and business-to-consumer transactions through an accessible web platform. The company leverages a wide network of advertising and analytics partners to monetize its traffic, employing sophisticated tracking and retargeting technologies. The presence of detailed privacy and cookie policies, along with a comprehensive consent management system, indicates a mature approach to regulatory compliance and user data management. The platform’s target audience is primarily Latvian residents seeking local classifieds, with content and navigation tailored to Latvian language users. The company maintains active social media channels to engage its audience and enhance brand visibility. Despite its strong market position and operational maturity, the absence of a valid SSL certificate may undermine user confidence and limit growth potential. The extensive use of third-party vendors also necessitates vigilant data protection and privacy oversight.

Security posture

The security posture of Zip.lv is currently weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability exposing users to potential data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The site does not implement essential security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, or X-Frame-Options, increasing susceptibility to common web attacks. Additionally, the domain lacks DMARC, DNSSEC, and CAA records, which are important for email security and certificate issuance control. On the positive side, the site shows no signs of known SSL vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE and does not expose sensitive data in the HTML content. The presence of a detailed consent management platform with extensive vendor disclosures reflects a strong privacy culture. However, the critical lack of HTTPS significantly lowers the overall security score and poses a major risk to user data confidentiality and integrity.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated versions.
  3. Configure HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Add and configure essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Set up DMARC, DNSSEC, and CAA records to enhance domain and email security.
  6. Optimize website performance by reducing page size and resource count to improve load times.
  7. Regularly audit third-party vendors for compliance and security risks.
  8. Enhance mobile optimization and accessibility features to improve user experience.
  9. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response information to increase transparency.
  10. Consider implementing a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional web technology stack including jQuery, FontAwesome, Google Fonts, and integrates multiple third-party services such as Google Analytics, Facebook SDK, Stripe for payments, and various advertising and tracking vendors. It is hosted behind Cloudflare, providing CDN and DDoS protection. However, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, resulting in no HTTPS availability, which is a critical technical deficiency. Performance metrics indicate a slow loading time (over 15 seconds) with a large page size (~2.6 MB) and a high number of resources (178), suggesting potential for optimization. The site includes a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism with detailed vendor disclosures, indicating a mature approach to privacy compliance. No CMS or specific frameworks are detected, implying a custom or legacy implementation. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but present. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but requires significant improvements in security and performance.
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 zip.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 zip.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.