Skip to main content

Security report for gm.com

General Motors · Transportation · United States

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

General Motors (GM) is a globally recognized automotive manufacturer with a rich heritage dating back to 1908. The company operates multiple iconic vehicle brands including Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac, and is focused on innovation in electric vehicles, autonomous driving, and sustainability. GM targets consumers and businesses seeking reliable, innovative vehicles and related services. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, strong branding, and clear navigation, supporting its enterprise scale and market leadership. Technically, the site leverages modern frameworks such as Vue.js and Adobe Experience Manager, hosted via Akamai CDN, but suffers from a critical security gap due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which significantly impacts its security posture. Privacy policies and terms of service are well documented, indicating good compliance practices, though cookie consent mechanisms are not explicitly detected. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent remediation of its SSL/TLS configuration to meet modern security standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

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

Keep watching gm.com

This scan found 17 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. See sample alerts.

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
0
Security headers
30
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
47

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

GM maintains a strong market position as a leading automotive manufacturer with a diversified portfolio spanning retail, commercial, and performance vehicles. Its business model includes manufacturing, technology innovation, and customer engagement programs such as GM Rewards. The company demonstrates a commitment to sustainability and future mobility solutions, including electric and autonomous vehicles. The website ecosystem includes multiple brand-specific domains and partner sites, reflecting a broad and integrated digital footprint. GM's operational scale is enterprise-level with a global reach, supported by extensive facilities and a large workforce. The digital presence supports recruitment, corporate communications, and customer engagement, indicating a mature and strategic approach to online business operations.

Security posture

The website's security posture is currently weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of HTTPS, exposing users to potential interception risks. Security headers are minimal but include X-Frame-Options set to SAMEORIGIN, which helps mitigate clickjacking. No HSTS policy is implemented, and no modern TLS protocols are enabled, further weakening transport security. Cookies are set with Secure flags, indicating some attention to security best practices. No known vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE are detected. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available on the site, which may limit transparency. Immediate action to deploy a valid SSL certificate and enable HTTPS is critical to improve security and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce HTTPS site-wide to protect user data and improve trust.
  2. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  3. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated protocols.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user transparency.
  5. Publish clear security policies and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Adobe Experience Manager CMS with Vue.js framework for frontend interactivity. It uses Akamai CDN for content delivery and Brightcove for video streaming. The site includes modern SEO and accessibility features, with responsive design for mobile devices. Performance metrics indicate slow loading times, suggesting optimization opportunities. The technical stack is modern but requires improvements in SSL/TLS configuration and security headers. The site integrates Adobe DTM for analytics and marketing, indicating a mature digital marketing infrastructure. Overall, the technical foundation is solid but security and performance optimizations are needed to enhance user experience and protection.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gm.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 gm.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.