Skip to main content

Security report for chrome.com

Google Chrome · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Google Chrome is a leading web browser developed and maintained by Google LLC, offering a fast, secure, and customizable browsing experience. The website serves as the official portal for Chrome, providing detailed information about its features, AI innovations, security, and cross-platform capabilities. It targets a broad audience of internet users seeking a reliable browser integrated with Google's ecosystem. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including JavaScript frameworks, animation libraries like Lottie and GSAP, and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. However, performance is somewhat slow with a high page load time and large page size. Security-wise, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate and security headers, which are critical issues despite no detected vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. Privacy compliance is strong, linking to comprehensive Google privacy and cookie policies with active consent mechanisms. Overall, the domain registration and WHOIS data confirm the site's legitimacy as an official Google property.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of chrome.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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"

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching chrome.com

This scan found 16 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
85
Security headers
45
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
64

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

Google Chrome holds a dominant market position in the web browser industry, leveraging Google's extensive ecosystem and brand trust. The business model revolves around free distribution of the browser, monetized indirectly through Google services and advertising. The website highlights key services such as AI-powered features, security enhancements, and extension support, appealing to both individual users and enterprise customers. The presence of multiple download options for various platforms and detailed support resources indicates a mature product lifecycle and broad user base. Strategic partnerships and integrations with Google Cloud, Workspace, and Chrome Enterprise further strengthen its market reach. The site’s content and structure reflect a focus on user engagement, product education, and seamless cross-device experiences.

Security posture

The website's security posture shows significant gaps, primarily due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and missing security headers, which are fundamental for protecting user data and ensuring secure communications. DNSSEC is not enabled, reducing DNS query security. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are provided on the site, which could be improved to enhance transparency and trust. Despite these issues, no active vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive information were detected. The site employs standard Google analytics and tag management tools, which are widely trusted but require proper configuration to avoid privacy risks. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires urgent improvements in SSL and header configurations to meet best practices and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately fix SSL certificate issues to ensure HTTPS validity and user trust.
  2. Implement essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and provide clear incident response contact channels.
  5. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and improve user experience.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and advanced animation libraries like Lottie and GSAP. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are integrated for marketing and analytics purposes. The site is hosted on Google infrastructure, ensuring high availability and scalability. However, the page size is large (347 KB) and load time is slow (12.25 seconds), indicating potential optimization opportunities. Accessibility and SEO are well addressed with proper meta tags, structured data (JSON-LD), and responsive design. The absence of CMS indications suggests a custom-built or proprietary platform. Technical risks include the invalid SSL certificate and lack of security headers, which could impact user trust and compliance.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
  2. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with chrome.com. 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 chrome.com.

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.