Skip to main content

Security report for goo.gl

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The domain goo.gl is a legacy URL shortening service operated by Google LLC. The analyzed page is an error message indicating an invalid Firebase Dynamic Link, targeting developers using Firebase services. The page content is minimal, providing no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, nor any contact information. Technically, the page is hosted on Google infrastructure and uses Firebase services, but lacks visible security headers or advanced security features in the provided HTML. The domain registration is consistent with Google LLC, confirming legitimacy. Overall, the website content is limited to an error message with no commercial or user-facing business content.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

5 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.

    • 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

  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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching goo.gl

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
52
Security headers
90
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
75

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention goo.gl, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1,696
Employees
0
Customers
1,635
Third parties
61
Weak passwords
20%

30 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for goo.gl.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

goo.gl is a Google-operated domain historically used for URL shortening and Firebase Dynamic Links. It serves a niche developer audience integrating Firebase services. The business model is embedded within Google's broader cloud and developer services ecosystem. There are no direct revenue streams or customer-facing services on this page. The domain is well-established and trusted, with no suspicious patterns. The lack of business information or contact details on this error page limits further business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The security posture of the analyzed page is minimal. No security headers or incident response contacts are present in the HTML content. HTTPS is assumed as the domain is Google-operated, but no explicit SSL/TLS details are provided. No privacy or cookie policies are found, indicating compliance gaps. The page does not collect user data or provide forms, reducing attack surface but also limiting security controls. Overall, the security maturity is low for this specific page, though the domain itself is managed by a reputable entity.

Recommendations

  1. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies accessible from all pages.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Provide clear developer support contact information for error resolution.
  4. Enhance error pages with user-friendly guidance and links to documentation.
  5. Regularly audit and update security posture and compliance documentation.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The page is an error message indicating an invalid dynamic link related to Firebase Dynamic Links service.
Key services
Firebase Dynamic Links service
Content quality
poor
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Firebase, Google services
Platforms
Firebase
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. The website content is an error page indicating an invalid Firebase Dynamic Link.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present on this page.
  3. No contact information or forms are available.
  4. The page is minimal and serves a specific developer error message.
  5. No security headers or advanced security features are visible in the HTML content.
  6. The domain is owned by Google LLC and is legitimate.
  7. No advertising, tracking, or analytics scripts are detected in the provided HTML.
  8. No social media or external links except a single link to firebase.google.com.
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The page is a simple HTML error message served by Firebase/Google infrastructure. No advanced frameworks or CMS are detected. The hosting provider is Google Cloud Platform. The page lacks meta tags, SEO optimization, and accessibility features. Mobile optimization is basic due to viewport meta tag but minimal content. No analytics or tracking scripts are present. The technical implementation is minimal and focused solely on delivering an error message.
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. 82/100Low21 findingsView report
  2. 82/100 +8Low21 findingsView report
  3. 74/100Medium23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with goo.gl. 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 goo.gl.

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.