Skip to main content

Security report for pki.goog

Google Trust Services · Technology · United States

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Google Trust Services operates as a Certificate Authority providing TLS certificates to secure internet traffic for Google services and external users. Leveraging Google's global infrastructure, it offers transparent, trusted, and reliable certificate issuance backed by compliance audits and security certifications. The service recently expanded to offer free publicly-trusted TLS certificates via the GTS ACME API, targeting developers and enterprises seeking secure encryption solutions. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies including Google Analytics, Tag Manager, and reCAPTCHA v3, hosted on Google's infrastructure ensuring fast performance and excellent mobile optimization. The site is well-structured with clear navigation and professional design, reflecting Google's branding consistency and high content quality. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS, uses security best practices, and holds multiple WebTrust certifications. However, explicit security policy documents and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not directly linked, representing an area for improvement. No vulnerabilities or suspicious content were detected, and privacy compliance is strong with clear cookie and privacy policies. Overall, the website demonstrates a high level of trustworthiness, technical maturity, and business credibility. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security policies, adding a vulnerability disclosure page, and providing direct incident response contacts to further enhance security posture and transparency.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of pki.goog. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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"

    • 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. 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 pki.goog

This scan found 15 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
77

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 Trust Services holds a strong market position as a leading Certificate Authority backed by Google LLC. Its business model focuses on providing TLS certificates to secure internet communications, including free certificates via API to encourage adoption. The target audience includes Google service users, developers, and enterprises requiring trusted encryption. The service benefits from Google's extensive infrastructure and brand reputation, supported by compliance certifications and transparent policies. The partnership ecosystem includes Google Cloud and industry certification bodies. Growth indicators include recent API offerings and public transparency initiatives. The company operates at an enterprise scale within the technology sector.

Security posture

The security maturity of Google Trust Services is high, supported by HTTPS enforcement, WebTrust certifications, and regular independent audits. The site uses reCAPTCHA to mitigate automated abuse and employs Google Tag Manager and Analytics for monitoring. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of a publicly linked vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file and direct incident response contacts suggests room for improvement in incident response readiness. Compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations is evident through clear policies and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the security culture appears robust but could benefit from enhanced transparency in security operations.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page detailing security controls and practices.
  2. Implement and link a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt page to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Provide clear incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Enhance HTTP security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options if not already present.
  5. Maintain and regularly update transparency reports and compliance audit results to reinforce trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Google Trust Services
Description
Google Trust Services provides Transport Layer Security (TLS) certificates for Google services and users helping to authenticate and encrypt internet traffic. The service is built on Google’s geographically distributed infrastructure and backed by security and compliance audits helping to provide a transparent, trusted, and reliable Certificate Authority.
Key services
TLS certificate issuance, Publicly-trusted certificates via GTS ACME API, Certificate transparency and repository, Security and compliance auditing
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA v3, Hammer.js
Platforms
Google Cloud Platform
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for bot protection
  • Regular independent audits
  • WebTrust certifications

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive and professionally presented.
  3. Strong trust signals via certifications and Google branding.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the site.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are clearly linked and GDPR compliant.
  6. Use of modern analytics and security technologies.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a custom platform hosted on Google infrastructure, utilizing modern JavaScript libraries such as Hammer.js and Google’s analytics and tag management tools. Performance is fast with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and canonical links. The site uses reCAPTCHA v3 for bot mitigation. No CMS or third-party content management system was detected, indicating a bespoke solution. Technical risks are minimal, but continuous monitoring of third-party scripts and security headers is recommended to maintain a strong security posture.
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. 77/100Low24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with pki.goog. 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 pki.goog.

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.