Skip to main content

Is ficil.lv a Scam? Security Check Results - FICIL Foreign Investors Council in Latvia Reviews

ficil.lv favicon

Is ficil.lv Safe? Security Analysis for FICIL Foreign Investors Council in Latvia

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

GovernmentLatviasmall
Google Tag ManagerWordPressColibri Page Builder ProGoogle FontsGoogle Maps API
Analyzed 7/30/2025Completed 4:09:19 AM
44
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI Summary

FICIL (Foreign Investors Council in Latvia) is a non-profit organization representing foreign investors in Latvia, aiming to improve the investment climate and foster dialogue between investors and government stakeholders. The website is built on WordPress using the Colibri Page Builder Pro plugin and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site presents professional content targeted at foreign investors and related business communities. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS likely enabled but lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies. WHOIS data could not be retrieved due to query limits, limiting domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced security and compliance transparency.

Detected Technologies

Google Tag ManagerWordPressColibri Page Builder ProGoogle FontsGoogle Maps API

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

FICIL occupies a key position as a representative body for foreign investors in Latvia, focusing on advocacy and improving the business environment. Its business model is non-profit and government-related, targeting foreign investors and policymakers. The website content supports this positioning with relevant information and professional design. The organization appears small in size with no visible subsidiaries or parent companies. The lack of detailed business registration or certification information on the site limits deeper business credibility assessment.

Extracted Contact Information

Marketing Intelligence Data

Email Addresses (1)

f*****@ficil.lv

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website shows a basic security posture with HTTPS usage implied but no detected security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are provided. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Google Tag Manager is used, indicating some level of user tracking, but no explicit consent mechanisms were found. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved with standard best practices and transparency.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

FICIL Foreign Investors Council in Latvia

Description:

FICIL is a council representing foreign investors in Latvia, focusing on improving the investment climate and business environment in the country.

Key Services:
advocacypolicy dialogueinvestment climate improvementbusiness networking
Content Quality:

good

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
Google Tag ManagerWordPressColibri Page Builder ProGoogle FontsGoogle Maps API
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

basic

Security Assessment

Security Score:
40/100

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
Google Tag Manager
Tracking Level:moderate
Privacy Compliance:basic

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:good
User Experience:good
Content Relevance:good
Navigation Clarity:good
Professionalism:good
Trustworthiness:moderate

Key Observations

1

Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

30/100
Score

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

28/100
Score

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

No Data Protection Officer mentioned

LOW

Large organizations may need to designate a DPO under GDPR

Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

MEDIUM

Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

EU business without adequate privacy measures

CRITICAL

EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy85% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
emailphone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

17/100
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

📧Email Security

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

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

55/100
Score

DMARC not enforcing

MEDIUM

DMARC policy is set to "none"

No DMARC reporting

LOW

DMARC aggregate reports not configured

No DKIM record found

MEDIUM

DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

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 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all
DNS Lookups:1/10
Policy:-all
DMARC Details
Policy:none

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

52/100
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 Soon

HIGH

SSL certificate expires in 24 days

Mixed Content Detected

MEDIUM

1 resources loaded over insecure HTTP

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 3 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Protocol Support

TLSv1.2TLSv1.3TLSv1.1

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

80/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

DMARC Policy Set to None

LOW

DMARC is configured but not enforcing any policy

DNS Records

A Records:193.105.166.15
Name Servers:
a.ns.pro-9.lvDNS only
b.ns.pro-9.lvDNS only
c.ns.pro-9.lvDNS only
MX Records:
0: ficil-lv.mail.protection.outlook.com
SOA:Serial: 2024110801, TTL: 3600s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:313ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

20/100
Score

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

HIGH

Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website uses WordPress CMS with the Colibri Page Builder Pro plugin, indicating a modern and flexible content management approach. Google Tag Manager is integrated for analytics and tracking. The site loads external resources from Google Fonts and Google Maps APIs. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization. Accessibility features are basic, and SEO optimization is minimal but present. No advanced frameworks or hosting provider details were identified. The technical infrastructure is adequate for the organization's needs but could benefit from performance and security enhancements.
Analyze Another Website