Skip to main content

Security report for publicpolicy.google

Google LLC · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Google Public Policy is a division of Google LLC focused on shaping and advocating for public policies that foster innovation, privacy, security, and responsible AI development. The website serves as a platform to communicate Google's priorities and initiatives in digital policy, targeting policymakers, governments, and the public. It reflects Google's leadership position in technology and its commitment to a safe and resilient digital future. Technically, the site is built on modern web technologies, hosted on Google Cloud, and employs Google’s internal frameworks and analytics tools, ensuring high performance, mobile optimization, and accessibility. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, security headers, and content security policies in place, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not published on the site. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with privacy regulations, linking to Google's comprehensive privacy and cookie policies. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious elements were detected.

Scanned

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

6 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • 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 publicpolicy.google

This scan found 21 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
52
Security headers
45
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
68

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 Public Policy operates within the broader Google ecosystem, leveraging Google's market dominance and technological expertise to influence global digital policy. The business model is primarily advocacy and thought leadership, supporting Google's technology products and services by shaping regulatory environments. The site highlights key sectors such as AI, privacy, security, sustainability, and trustworthy content, reflecting Google's strategic priorities. Partnerships with subsidiaries like DeepMind and platforms like Google Cloud enhance its capabilities. The target audience includes policymakers, industry stakeholders, and the general public interested in technology governance. The site’s content and structure support Google's reputation as a market leader and innovator in technology and public policy.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and a trusted types policy to mitigate script injection risks. Cookie consent mechanisms align with privacy best practices. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy page, vulnerability disclosure program, or incident response contact reduces transparency and may limit rapid response capabilities. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The use of Google-managed scripts and analytics services suggests ongoing security management. Overall, the site is secure but could improve by publishing explicit security governance documents and contact channels.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and trust.
  2. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Provide clear contact information for security incidents, such as a security@google.com email address.
  4. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and analytics tools to minimize potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance data protection officer visibility and GDPR compliance details on the site.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Google LLC
Description
Google Public Policy focuses on innovation that empowers a safe and resilient digital future, addressing global public policy priorities including consumer choice, economic opportunity, privacy, responsible AI, security, sustainability, and trustworthy information.
Key services
Public policy advocacy, AI and technology innovation, Privacy and security initiatives, Sustainability projects
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, YouTube Player API, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Glue (Google internal framework)
Platforms
Google Cloud Hosting
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
95/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Content Security Policy implemented
  • Trusted Types policy for script injection
  • Cookie consent mechanism

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well maintained.
  2. Content is comprehensive and focused on public policy and technology.
  3. Strong branding and consistent Google identity.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on the site.
  5. Robust use of Google technologies and analytics.
  6. No visible security or privacy policy pages hosted on the domain but linked to Google's central policies.
  7. No forms detected on the homepage or main content.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  9. Social media presence on LinkedIn and Twitter with verified Google accounts.
  10. Cookie consent banner present and functional.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web standards including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, leveraging Google's internal Glue framework and Google Fonts for typography. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for data collection and performance monitoring. Hosting is provided by Google Cloud Platform, ensuring scalability and reliability. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with fast loading times and proper SEO meta tags. No CMS is explicitly detected, indicating a custom-built solution. The technical infrastructure is robust, with opportunities to enhance security transparency and incident management capabilities.
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 publicpolicy.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 publicpolicy.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.