Skip to main content

Security report for web.app

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of web.app. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

2 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  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 web.app

This scan found 13 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
60
Email security
83
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
83

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

Firebase operates within the technology sector as a platform-as-a-service provider under Google LLC. Its business model focuses on offering cloud-based development tools and hosting services that cater primarily to developers and enterprises building mobile and web applications. Firebase's competitive advantage lies in its integration with Google's cloud ecosystem, extensive product suite, and global infrastructure. Revenue streams likely include usage-based billing for hosting, storage, and advanced features. The target customer segments range from individual developers and startups to large enterprises. Firebase maintains a strong partnership ecosystem within Google and the broader developer community. Growth indicators include continuous product expansion, adoption of AI capabilities, and integration with emerging technologies. Strategic observations highlight Firebase's positioning as a comprehensive, scalable, and developer-friendly platform with a strong brand presence.

Security posture

Firebase's security posture is robust, benefiting from Google's extensive security infrastructure and best practices. The website enforces HTTPS, uses secure Google-hosted scripts, and implements a cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of privacy and security compliance. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and a published security.txt file suggests room for improvement in transparency and defense-in-depth. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly detailed on the analyzed page, which could be enhanced to improve user trust and compliance with regulations like GDPR and NIS2. Overall, Firebase demonstrates a mature security culture but should consider publishing more explicit security and incident response documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a security.txt file to provide clear vulnerability disclosure and incident response contact information.
  3. Enhance privacy compliance by providing explicit privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  4. Add visible contact information or dedicated security contact channels to improve transparency and user trust.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate risks from vulnerable libraries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Google
Description
Firebase is Google's mobile and web app development platform that helps developers build apps and games that users will love.
Key services
App Hosting, Authentication, Cloud Functions, Cloud Storage, Realtime Database, Firestore, Analytics, Crashlytics, Performance Monitoring, Remote Config
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts, Material Icons, JavaScript, Progressive Web App (manifest.json), JSON-LD structured data
Platforms
Firebase, Google Cloud Platform
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google-managed scripts and resources
  • Cookie consent mechanism present

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. Strong branding consistent with Google and Firebase products.
  3. Comprehensive product offerings for app development and hosting.
  4. Use of Google technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Cookie consent mechanism present indicating privacy awareness.
  6. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on this page.
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information.
  8. No WHOIS data for subdomain, but domain is part of Google infrastructure.
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. 80/100 −3Low23 findingsView report
  2. 83/100Low22 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with web.app. 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 web.app.

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.