Skip to main content

Security report for googlemail.com

Google LLC · Technology · United States

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Google LLC operates the Gmail service, a leading email platform globally recognized for its intuitive, efficient, and secure email experience. The service offers 15 GB of storage, robust spam filtering, and seamless mobile access, catering to a broad audience including individual users and businesses. As part of the larger Alphabet Inc. ecosystem, Gmail benefits from extensive technological resources and integration with other Google services. The website demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure with advanced security measures such as strict content security policies, HSTS, and secure cookie handling. However, the absence of modern TLS protocols indicates an area for improvement in cryptographic standards. The security posture is strong with no detected vulnerabilities or subdomain takeover risks, reflecting Google's commitment to protecting user data and privacy. Overall, the site presents a professional, trustworthy, and user-friendly interface aligned with Google's brand standards.

Scanned

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

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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: YouTube, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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 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 googlemail.com

This scan found 12 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
90
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
78

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

Gmail holds a dominant market position in the email service sector, leveraging Google's extensive cloud infrastructure and global reach. Its business model primarily revolves around offering free email services with optional paid upgrades through Google Workspace. The platform targets a diverse user base, including individual consumers, enterprises, and educational institutions. Key competitive advantages include integration with other Google services, advanced spam and security features, and a highly scalable infrastructure. The ecosystem includes related services such as Google Workspace, enhancing collaboration and productivity. Continuous innovation and adherence to privacy regulations like GDPR strengthen its market presence. Strategic partnerships and a robust technology stack support sustained growth and user engagement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a high level of security maturity, implementing essential headers like X-Frame-Options, Strict-Transport-Security with subdomain inclusion, and a comprehensive Content Security Policy enforcing Trusted Types for scripts. Cookies are set with Secure and HttpOnly flags, reducing attack vectors such as cross-site scripting and session hijacking. The SSL certificate is valid and issued by a trusted authority, though the lack of support for TLS 1.2 or higher is a notable gap. No known critical vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed, POODLE, FREAK, or Logjam are present. The absence of a public security policy or incident response contact on this page suggests these may be managed through other channels. Overall, the security controls align with best practices for a high-profile service, ensuring robust protection of user credentials and data.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade SSL/TLS configuration to support TLS 1.2 or higher to enhance encryption strength.
  2. Enable HSTS preload to enforce strict transport security across all browsers by default.
  3. Implement a visible cookie consent mechanism to comply with global privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  5. Regularly review and update Content Security Policy allowlists to minimize risk from third-party scripts.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a custom Google platform utilizing advanced JavaScript frameworks including the Closure Library. It leverages Google Fonts and employs Trusted Types to mitigate script injection risks. The hosting is managed by Google, ensuring high availability and performance. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, supporting multiple languages as indicated by the extensive language selector. Performance metrics indicate fast load times, though no explicit resource counts or page size data were available. The technical infrastructure reflects a modern, scalable, and secure environment suitable for a global user base. Opportunities exist to modernize SSL protocols and enhance privacy compliance features.
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 googlemail.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 googlemail.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.