Skip to main content

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

G

Is galanta.lv Safe? Security Analysis for Авторизация

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

OtherN/asmall
1C-BitrixJavaScriptHTML5CSS3XMLHttpRequest
Analyzed 7/30/2025Completed 8:37:59 PM
38
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI Summary

The website galanta.lv is primarily a login portal built on the 1C-Bitrix CMS platform, featuring a Russian language interface focused on user authentication via multiple social login providers. The site lacks publicly accessible business information, privacy policies, or contact details, limiting insight into the company's operations or market positioning. The technical infrastructure is basic, with no visible advanced analytics or advertising integrations. Security posture is weak due to absence of HTTPS confirmation and missing security headers, and the site exposes session identifiers in hidden form fields, which could pose risks. Overall, the site appears to serve as an access point rather than a public-facing business site, which constrains comprehensive analysis.

Detected Technologies

1C-BitrixJavaScriptHTML5CSS3XMLHttpRequest

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Due to the absence of business descriptions, contact information, or corporate identifiers, the business intelligence on galanta.lv is minimal. The site does not disclose company name, sector, or market position. The use of 1C-Bitrix suggests a regional or niche business possibly targeting Russian-speaking users. The lack of privacy and cookie policies, as well as no visible certifications or trust signals, indicates limited maturity in compliance and customer engagement. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable from the site content.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The security posture of galanta.lv is currently weak. The site lacks visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers, which are critical for protecting user data during authentication. The login forms use POST methods but include session IDs in hidden fields, potentially exposing session fixation vulnerabilities. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The absence of privacy and cookie policies further indicates compliance gaps. No WAF or bot protection mechanisms are detected, increasing risk of automated attacks. Overall, the site requires significant improvements to meet standard security best practices.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Content Quality:

poor

Branding:

moderate

Technical Stack

Technologies:
1C-BitrixJavaScriptHTML5CSS3XMLHttpRequest
Frameworks:
1C-Bitrix
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

basic

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

poor

Security Assessment

Security Score:
30/100
Best Practices:
  • Secure form inputs with POST method

Analytics & Tracking

Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:poor

Website Quality Assessment

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

Key Observations

1

Website is a login/authentication page with no public business content.

🛡️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, digital

📧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 ip4:195.7.6.188 a mx ~all
DNS Lookups:2/10
Policy:~all
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Subdomain Policy:none

🏆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 82 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

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:195.7.6.188
Name Servers:
lara.ns.cloudflare.comDNS only
lynn.ns.cloudflare.comDNS only
SOA:Serial: 2374433597, TTL: 1800s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:96ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 ip4:195.7.6.188 a mx ~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

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 uses the 1C-Bitrix CMS platform with standard JavaScript and CSS resources. The site loads moderate resources and uses XMLHttpRequest for dynamic content updates. The HTML structure is basic and focused on authentication forms with social login options. There is no evidence of modern SEO or accessibility enhancements. Mobile optimization is basic, and no advanced analytics or marketing tools are detected. The lack of HTTPS information and security headers indicates technical debt in security implementation. Performance is moderate but could be improved with optimization and modern best practices.
Analyze Another Website