Skip to main content

Is csm.lv a Scam? Security Check Results - csm.lv Reviews

C

Is csm.lv Safe? Security Analysis for 403 Forbidden

Check if csm.lv is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

OtherN/asmall
Apache/2.4.18Ubuntu
Analyzed 7/30/2025Completed 10:18:22 PM
47
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI Summary

The website at csm.lv is currently inaccessible, returning an HTTP 403 Forbidden error indicating that access to the resource is denied. Due to this, no meaningful content, metadata, or business information could be extracted or analyzed. The lack of accessible content and absence of WHOIS data (due to query limit restrictions) severely limits the ability to assess the company's business operations, market position, or technical infrastructure. The site appears to be either restricted by server configuration or protected by security mechanisms that prevent public access. From a technical perspective, the server runs Apache 2.4.18 on Ubuntu, but no modern web technologies, CMS, or analytics tools could be detected. The security posture is weak as no security headers or policies are present, and the site is not accessible via HTTPS or any other secure means visible in the provided data. Privacy compliance and contact information are entirely missing, which raises concerns about transparency and regulatory adherence. Overall, the risk assessment is high due to the lack of accessible information, absence of security and privacy policies, and inability to verify domain registration details. Strategic recommendations include resolving the access restrictions to enable content visibility, implementing robust security headers and HTTPS, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and ensuring WHOIS data is accessible for trust verification.

Detected Technologies

Apache/2.4.18Ubuntu

🧠AI Business Intelligence

Technology stack, business insights, and market analysis powered by AI.

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Due to the lack of accessible website content and missing WHOIS data, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be either new or protected, but no company name, sector, or market positioning information is available. There are no indications of partnerships, subsidiaries, or business models. The absence of contact details and policies further limits insights into the company's operations or customer engagement strategies.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The current security posture is poor. The site is inaccessible due to a 403 Forbidden error, which may be intentional for security or misconfiguration. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement are evident. The absence of privacy policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates low maturity in security and compliance. The inability to access WHOIS data further complicates trust verification. Immediate remediation should focus on enabling secure access, implementing security best practices, and publishing compliance documentation.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Resolve the HTTP 403 Forbidden error to allow legitimate users access to the website content.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Generic Detected

HTTP 403 Forbidden error page indicating access is denied by server configuration or security rules.

Analysis results may be incomplete. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com

Business Insights

Content Quality:

poor

Branding:

inconsistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
Apache/2.4.18Ubuntu
SEO:

poor

Security Assessment

Security Score:
10/100

Analytics & Tracking

Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:poor

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:poor
User Experience:poor
Content Relevance:poor
Navigation Clarity:poor
Professionalism:poor
Trustworthiness:low

Key Observations

1

Website content is inaccessible due to HTTP 403 Forbidden error.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

15/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

MEDIUM

Prevents MIME type sniffing

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Missing X-XSS-Protection header

MEDIUM

Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

Missing Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

Missing Permissions-Policy header

MEDIUM

Controls browser features and APIs

Sensitive data may be cached

LOW

Cache-Control header should include "no-store" for sensitive pages

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

25/100
Score

No Privacy Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

No Cookie Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

No Cookie Consent Banner found

HIGH

GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

EU business without adequate privacy measures

CRITICAL

EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy0% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
phone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

2/100
Score

No information security framework found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity and information security measures

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

No security policy documentation found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity governance and risk management

No incident response procedures found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented incident response and business continuity plans

No business continuity planning found

MEDIUM

NIS2 emphasizes operational resilience and business continuity

No security contact information

HIGH

NIS2 requires clear incident reporting channels

No vulnerability reporting mechanism

MEDIUM

Clear vulnerability reporting supports coordinated disclosure

No NIS2 reference found

LOW

Consider explicitly mentioning NIS2 compliance efforts

Critical sector without clear security compliance

HIGH

Detected sectors: transport

📧Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation and email security assessment.

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

85/100
Score

No BIMI Record

LOW

BIMI displays brand logos in email clients

No MTA-STS Policy

MEDIUM

MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

No TLS-RPT Record

LOW

TLS-RPT provides reporting for email TLS issues

SPF
Sender Policy Framework
DKIM
DomainKeys Identified Mail
DMARC
Domain-based Message Authentication
MX Records
Mail Exchange Records
BIMI
Brand Indicators
MTA-STS
Mail Transfer Agent Security
TLS-RPT
TLS Reporting
DNSSEC
DNS Security
SPF Details
Record:
v=spf1 a mx ip4:80.232.218.6 include:_spf.google.com -all
DNS Lookups:3/10
Policy:-all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:mail(1296-bit rsa)

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

72/100
Score

Weak Protocols Supported

HIGH

Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

OCSP Stapling Not Enabled

LOW

OCSP stapling improves performance and privacy

Certificate Transparency Not Implemented

LOW

Certificate is not logged in Certificate Transparency logs

SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

MEDIUM

SSL certificate expires in 77 days

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 3 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Protocol Support

TLSv1.3TLSv1.2TLSv1.1

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

65/100
Score

Insufficient Name Servers

MEDIUM

Domain has only 1 name server (minimum 2 recommended)

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

No DMARC Record

MEDIUM

DMARC policy not configured

DNS Records

A Records:80.232.218.6
Name Servers:
ns.csm.lvDNS only
MX Records:
10: barracuda.csm.lv
SOA:Serial: 202412132, TTL: 3600s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:105ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 a mx ip4:80.232.218.6 include:_spf.google.com -all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

100/100
Score

Good Network Security Posture

LOW

No unnecessary services detected on common risky ports

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website is hosted on an Apache 2.4.18 server running Ubuntu. No CMS, frameworks, or modern web technologies were detected due to the lack of accessible content. The site returns a 403 Forbidden error, indicating restricted access likely due to server configuration or security controls. No metadata, scripts, or external resources were found, suggesting minimal or no public-facing content. Performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility cannot be assessed. The lack of HTTPS or security headers is a significant technical risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure appears basic and possibly outdated, with critical access issues preventing further analysis.
Analyze Another Website