Skip to main content

Security report for google.org

Google Org · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Google.org is the philanthropic arm of Google LLC, dedicated to leveraging Google's innovation, research, and resources to support nonprofits and underserved communities worldwide. The website showcases various initiatives focused on AI for good, scientific progress, education, and community strengthening. It serves as a platform to connect nonprofits with funding and technical expertise, emphasizing social impact and societal advancement. The site is well-branded, professionally designed, and highly accessible, reflecting Google's enterprise-level digital maturity. Technically, the site employs modern web standards, responsive design, and Google-managed hosting infrastructure, ensuring fast performance and good SEO. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, security headers, and cookie consent mechanisms, although explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not publicly detailed. Overall, the site demonstrates high legitimacy and trustworthiness consistent with Google's reputation.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of google.org. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 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 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

  3. 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 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 google.org

This scan found 18 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
75
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Google.org operates as a non-profit philanthropic entity within the technology sector, focusing on social impact through funding and technical support to nonprofits. Its market position is strong due to its association with Google, providing significant resources and credibility. The business model centers on grant-making and program support rather than direct revenue generation. Target audiences include nonprofits, researchers, educators, and communities in need. The site links to multiple Google initiatives and partner programs, indicating a broad ecosystem of social impact projects. Growth indicators include active funding programs and AI collaborative projects. Strategic observations highlight the organization's role in advancing AI for societal benefit and expanding educational opportunities globally.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and a cookie consent mechanism aligned with privacy regulations. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analyzed content. However, the absence of a publicly accessible security policy or incident response contact information represents a minor compliance gap. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. The site appears compliant with GDPR through linked privacy policies and cookie management. Overall, the security culture is strong but could be enhanced by publishing explicit security governance documents and incident response channels.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and compliance.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  4. Enhance contact information availability for business and security inquiries.
  5. Continue monitoring and updating security headers and cookie consent mechanisms to maintain compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Google Org
Description
Google.org connects nonprofits to funding & additional resources. Learn about our philanthropy program and goal to aid underserved communities.
Key services
Funding nonprofits, Providing technical expertise, Supporting AI and scientific progress, Community strengthening initiatives
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts, WebP images, Responsive design
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of nonce attributes in scripts
  • Cookie consent mechanism present

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multimedia
  2. Strong Google branding and consistent design
  3. Focus on philanthropy and social impact initiatives
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main page
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are clearly linked and comprehensive
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response info found
  7. No forms detected on the main page
  8. Use of modern web technologies and responsive design
  9. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, with integration of Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. It uses Google Fonts and serves optimized images in WebP format for performance. The site is hosted on Google infrastructure, ensuring high availability and fast loading times. Responsive design and accessibility features are well implemented, providing a good user experience across devices. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. The technical implementation aligns with best practices for enterprise-level web properties, with opportunities to enhance security documentation and incident response readiness.
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. 72/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with google.org. 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 google.org.

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.