Skip to main content

Security report for googlecode.com

Google · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The domain googlecode.com historically served as a platform for hosting open source projects under Google's umbrella. Currently, the website content is a 404 error page indicating that the service or content is no longer available. The domain is registered through MarkMonitor Inc., a reputable registrar used by Google, and the domain age aligns with the historical timeline of the Google Code service. The website infrastructure is minimal, with basic HTML and CSS, no active content, no privacy or cookie policies, and no contact information. The site is hosted by Google and shows consistent branding but lacks functional content or services. Security posture is limited due to lack of DNSSEC and absence of security headers, but the domain registration protections are strong. Overall, the site is safe but non-functional, with a low AI score due to lack of content and policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

8 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"

    • 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching googlecode.com

This scan found 20 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
20
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
63

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 Code was positioned as a key service for developers and open source communities, providing code repository hosting and project management tools. The business model was platform-based, supporting open source development. The domain is part of Google's extensive ecosystem, reflecting an enterprise-level operation. The service has been deprecated, and the domain now serves as a placeholder with no active offerings. There are no visible partnerships or subsidiaries linked directly to this domain. The lack of active content and policies suggests the domain is maintained primarily for legacy or brand protection purposes.

Security posture

The current security posture is minimal due to the absence of active content and security policies. The domain benefits from strong registrar-level protections preventing unauthorized transfers or deletions. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers are present in the HTTP response. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site uses HTTPS (implied by Google hosting), but no explicit security best practices are observable on the page. The lack of forms or data collection reduces attack surface but also limits user engagement and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide contact information or a security incident response channel to enhance transparency and responsiveness.
  5. Consider redirecting or repurposing the domain to provide value or clear messaging to visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Google
Description
Google Code was a project hosting service by Google, historically used for open source projects. The current page indicates the service or content is no longer available.
Key services
Code repository hosting, Project management
Content quality
poor
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS
Performance
fast
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is currently a 404 error page indicating the service or content is no longer available.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the page.
  3. No contact information or forms present.
  4. No scripts or external libraries detected beyond basic HTML and CSS.
  5. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  6. Domain is well protected with multiple domain status flags.
  7. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a minor security gap.
  8. Branding is consistent with Google but content is minimal and non-functional.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML and CSS with no advanced frameworks or CMS detected. Hosting is provided by Google, ensuring fast performance and reliable uptime. Mobile optimization is basic, with responsive viewport meta tag but minimal styling for mobile devices. Accessibility features are minimal, and SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta tags and content. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, indicating minimal data collection. The domain is protected with multiple registrar status flags but lacks DNSSEC. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and reflects a deprecated or placeholder site.
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. 63/100Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 63/100 +2Medium29 findingsView report
  3. 61/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with googlecode.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 googlecode.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.