Skip to main content

Security report for safety.google

Google · Technology · United States

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

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Google Safety Center is a comprehensive online platform dedicated to educating and empowering users to stay safe online through Google's products and services. The website showcases Google's commitment to user safety, privacy, and cybersecurity, highlighting key services such as Search, Gmail, Chrome, and others. The site is professionally designed with excellent content quality, clear navigation, and mobile optimization, targeting a broad audience of Google product users worldwide. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including JavaScript frameworks, Lottie animations, and Google Tag Manager, hosted on Google's infrastructure ensuring fast performance and reliability. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced, robust security headers, and no known vulnerabilities, though improvements like HSTS and OCSP stapling could enhance it further. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear links to Google's privacy policy, cookie consent mechanisms, and GDPR adherence. Overall, the site reflects Google's enterprise-grade professionalism and trustworthiness, with minor gaps in explicit security policy disclosures and contact information. Strategic recommendations include enhancing HTTPS policies, publishing incident response details, and improving transparency around vulnerability disclosures.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of safety.google. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

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 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

  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 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 safety.google

This scan found 24 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
67
Security headers
45
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
64

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention safety.google, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
182
Employees
0
Customers
127
Third parties
55
Weak passwords
19%

6 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for safety.google.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Google Safety Center serves as a strategic communication channel reinforcing Google's market leadership in technology and cybersecurity. The platform supports Google's business model by promoting trust and safety across its extensive product ecosystem, which includes search, email, video, mobile OS, and smart devices. The site targets end-users globally, emphasizing privacy controls and security features to reduce risk and enhance user confidence. Google's competitive advantage lies in its scale, integration of security features, and transparent privacy practices. The presence of Google Tag Manager and related analytics tools indicates a mature digital marketing and data collection strategy. The absence of direct contact information suggests a focus on self-service and automated support channels. The site aligns with Google's broader ecosystem, linking to official policies and support resources, reinforcing brand consistency and credibility.

Security posture

The security posture of the Google Safety Center website is robust, leveraging HTTPS with TLS 1.3 and 1.2 protocols, strong Content Security Policy headers with nonce values, and other security headers like X-Content-Type-Options and Cross-Origin policies. No SSL vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or Logjam are detected. However, the site does not enable HSTS or OCSP stapling, which are recommended for enhanced security. The CSP includes some unsafe directives ('unsafe-eval', 'unsafe-inline') which could be tightened. There is no visible security policy or incident response contact information on the site, and no security.txt file is found. The domain uses Google-managed DNS without DNSSEC enabled. Overall, the site demonstrates a high level of security maturity consistent with enterprise standards but could improve transparency and some technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Implement OCSP stapling to improve SSL certificate revocation checking performance and security.
  3. Improve Content Security Policy by removing 'unsafe-eval' and 'unsafe-inline' if feasible to reduce XSS risks.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy page including incident response procedures and contact channels.
  5. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve security transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web standards including HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript, with advanced features such as Lottie animations for rich interactive content. It uses Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, and polyfills for browser compatibility. Hosting is on Google's infrastructure, ensuring high availability and performance. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and accessibility considerations. DNS is managed by Google with multiple authoritative nameservers, though DNSSEC is not enabled. SSL configuration supports modern protocols without known vulnerabilities but lacks some advanced features like OCSP stapling and HSTS. Overall, the technical implementation reflects a mature, scalable, and secure platform consistent with Google's enterprise-grade standards.
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. 67/100Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 67/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with safety.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 safety.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.