Skip to main content

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

F

Is filmproducers.lv Safe? Security Analysis for filmproducers.lv

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

OtherN/asmall
Analyzed 7/30/2025Completed 9:35:50 PM
36
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI Summary

The website filmproducers.lv currently presents minimal content, primarily consisting of a hidden list of external links to various unrelated domains. There is no visible metadata, structured data, or business information to provide insight into the company's operations, market position, or services. The lack of WHOIS data due to query limits further restricts the ability to verify domain ownership or legitimacy. Technically, the site lacks modern web technologies, security headers, and HTTPS, indicating a low level of digital maturity. Security posture is weak with no visible protections or policies, and privacy compliance is absent. Overall, the site appears to be a placeholder or link farm rather than a legitimate business website, resulting in a low trust and security rating.

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Due to the absence of business-related content, metadata, or contact information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The site does not demonstrate a clear market positioning, business model, or target audience. The presence of numerous unrelated external links suggests possible SEO manipulation or spam activity rather than a genuine business presence. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable from the content.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The security posture of the website is poor. There is no evidence of HTTPS usage, security headers, or privacy policies. The lack of contact information and incident response details further weakens the security maturity. No vulnerability disclosures or data protection officer information is present. The site is vulnerable to basic web security risks and does not follow best practices for protecting user data or ensuring compliance with regulations such as GDPR.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Content Quality:

poor

Branding:

inconsistent

Technical Stack

Performance:

slow

Mobile:

poor

Accessibility:

poor

SEO:

poor

Security Assessment

Security Score:
30/100

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

WHOIS data unavailable due to query limit error

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

30/100
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 Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

Missing Permissions-Policy header

MEDIUM

Controls browser features and APIs

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

15/100
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

Insufficient contact information

MEDIUM

GDPR requires organizations to provide clear contact details

EU business without adequate privacy measures

CRITICAL

EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy0% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence

🛡️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: digital

📧Email Security

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

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

60/100
Score

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

No email authentication configured

CRITICAL

Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

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

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

62/100
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 42 days

Mixed Content Detected

MEDIUM

2 resources loaded over insecure HTTP

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

75/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

No DMARC Record

MEDIUM

DMARC policy not configured

DNS Records

A Records:37.203.34.48
Name Servers:
ns1.deac.lvDNS only
ns2.deac.lvDNS only
ns3.deac.lvDNS only
MX Records:
20: mx2.deac.lv
10: mx-01.deac.lv
30: mx3.deac.lv
SOA:Serial: 1728643133, TTL: 3600s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:145ms

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

Service Exposed: SSH

MEDIUM

Port 22 (SSH) is publicly accessible - SSH - Secure but can be brute-forced

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website lacks any detectable modern technologies, frameworks, or CMS platforms. The HTML content is minimal with no metadata, scripts, or structured data. There is no evidence of performance optimization, mobile responsiveness, or accessibility features. The site appears to be hosted on an unknown provider with no visible indicators of infrastructure quality. Technical debt is high due to the absence of basic web standards and security measures.
Analyze Another Website