Skip to main content

Security report for io.google

Google · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website io.google/2025 is an official Google event site dedicated to Google I/O 2025, a major developer conference showcasing Google's latest products, innovations, and developer tools. The site targets developers and technology enthusiasts, providing event recaps, keynote information, and learning resources. It is professionally designed with consistent Google branding and optimized for mobile and accessibility. The technical infrastructure leverages modern web technologies including JavaScript modules, Google APIs, and Google Cloud hosting, ensuring fast performance and a seamless user experience. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and use of Google OAuth2, though explicit security headers and dedicated security policies are not visible in the HTML content. Privacy compliance is robust, linking to Google's comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with an active cookie consent mechanism. No contact emails or phone numbers are directly listed, consistent with Google's typical approach to large event sites. Overall, the site is trustworthy, well-maintained, and aligned with Google's corporate standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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 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';…

  3. 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

  4. 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 io.google

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
60
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
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 maintains a dominant market position in the technology sector, with a strong developer ecosystem supported by events like Google I/O. This site serves as a strategic platform to engage developers, promote new technologies, and foster community growth. The business model focuses on ecosystem expansion and product adoption rather than direct monetization from the event site. The presence of official Google social media channels and integration with Google APIs underscores a tightly integrated partnership ecosystem. The site reflects Google's enterprise scale and global reach, targeting a large audience of developers worldwide.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and use of Google-managed authentication and analytics services. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content Security Policy or HSTS in the provided data suggests potential areas for enhancement. There is no dedicated security policy or incident response contact information visible, which could improve transparency and trust. The cookie consent mechanism aligns with GDPR requirements, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. Overall, the security posture is strong but could benefit from additional explicit security documentation and headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly document explicit security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy page and provide clear incident response contact channels to improve transparency and user trust.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Consider including verified contact information for security or privacy inquiries to strengthen compliance and user confidence.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are introduced.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Google
Description
Google I/O 2025 is an event website showcasing product launches, innovations, and insights from Google. It targets developers and technology enthusiasts interested in Google's latest technologies and developer tools.
Key services
Event information and recaps, Developer resources and learning content, Community engagement
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript (ES Modules), Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Google OAuth2, YouTube API, Lit-html hydration, CSS with Google Fonts
Frameworks
Lit (web components hydration)
Platforms
Google Cloud Hosting
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google OAuth2 for authentication
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of async and defer for scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, 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. Official Google event website for Google I/O 2025
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy links to Google policies
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the page
  4. Strong use of Google technologies and APIs
  5. No visible security or privacy policy documents specific to this subsite
  6. No forms detected on the homepage content
  7. Social media links point to official Google developer channels
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses a modern tech stack including ES modules, Lit-html for hydration, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics for tracking. Hosting is on Google Cloud Platform, ensuring high availability and performance. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA labels. SEO is supported by comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. No CMS is explicitly identified, but flags suggest use of Wagtail or a custom Google CMS. Performance is fast with async script loading and preconnect hints. Technical risks are minimal, with no visible deprecated or vulnerable libraries. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and formalize security documentation.
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. 70/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with io.google. 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 io.google.

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.