Skip to main content

Is forms.gle a Scam? Security Check Results - Google LLC Reviews

G

Is forms.gle Safe? Security Analysis for Google LLC

Check if forms.gle is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

TechnologyUnited Statesenterprise
HTML5CSSRoboto font
Analyzed 9/6/2025Completed 6:39:10 AM
57
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

The analyzed page at forms.gle is an error page indicating an invalid dynamic link related to Google's Firebase Dynamic Links service. The page is minimal, containing only basic HTML with an error message and a link to firebase.google.com. There is no substantive business content, no privacy or cookie policies, no contact information, and no forms or interactive elements. The domain forms.gle is a legitimate Google-owned domain used for URL shortening and dynamic linking within Google's ecosystem. The technical infrastructure is basic but secure, served over HTTPS and hosted on Google Cloud. Security posture is adequate given the lack of interactive elements, but the page lacks security headers and privacy compliance indicators. Overall, the page serves a narrow technical purpose and does not represent a full business website or service landing page.

Detected Technologies

HTML5CSSRoboto font

🧠AI Business Intelligence

Technology stack, business insights, and market analysis powered by AI.

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

The domain forms.gle is owned by Google LLC, a global technology leader and subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. The service is part of Google's Firebase platform, targeting developers who use dynamic links in mobile and web applications. The business model is integrated within Google's broader cloud and developer services ecosystem. There are no direct revenue streams or customer-facing business content on this error page. The target audience is developers and technical users. The domain and service benefit from Google's strong market position and brand recognition. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated on this page.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The security posture of the page is basic but sufficient for its purpose. HTTPS is enforced, ensuring encrypted communication. However, no additional security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are detected in the provided data. There are no forms or inputs, reducing attack surface. No privacy or security policies are presented, which is typical for an error page but limits compliance visibility. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data are evident. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are absent. Overall, the security posture is adequate but minimal.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance security.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

Google LLC

Description:

Google Forms is a service by Google LLC that allows users to create and manage online forms and surveys.

Key Services:
online form creationsurvey managementdata collection
Content Quality:

poor

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
HTML5CSSRoboto font
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

basic

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

poor

Security Assessment

Security Score:
70/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics & Tracking

Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:poor

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:poor
User Experience:poor
Content Relevance:poor
Navigation Clarity:poor
Professionalism:poor
Trustworthiness:high

Key Observations

1

The page is an error page indicating an invalid dynamic link.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

45/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

MEDIUM

Prevents MIME type sniffing

Missing X-XSS-Protection header

MEDIUM

Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

Missing Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

50/100
Score

No Privacy Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

No Cookie Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

No Cookie Consent Banner found

HIGH

GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy0% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
phone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

2/100
Score

No information security framework found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity and information security measures

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

No security policy documentation found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity governance and risk management

No incident response procedures found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented incident response and business continuity plans

No business continuity planning found

MEDIUM

NIS2 emphasizes operational resilience and business continuity

No security contact information

HIGH

NIS2 requires clear incident reporting channels

No vulnerability reporting mechanism

MEDIUM

Clear vulnerability reporting supports coordinated disclosure

No NIS2 reference found

LOW

Consider explicitly mentioning NIS2 compliance efforts

Critical sector without clear security compliance

HIGH

Detected sectors: energy, transport, digital

📧Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation and email security assessment.

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

40/100
Score

No SPF record found

HIGH

SPF helps prevent email spoofing

No DKIM record found

MEDIUM

DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

No BIMI Record

LOW

BIMI displays brand logos in email clients

No MTA-STS Policy

MEDIUM

MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

No TLS-RPT Record

LOW

TLS-RPT provides reporting for email TLS issues

No email authentication configured

CRITICAL

Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

SPF
Sender Policy Framework
DKIM
DomainKeys Identified Mail
DMARC
Domain-based Message Authentication
MX Records
Mail Exchange Records
BIMI
Brand Indicators
MTA-STS
Mail Transfer Agent Security
TLS-RPT
TLS Reporting
DNSSEC
DNS Security

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

95/100
Score

SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

MEDIUM

SSL certificate expires in 82 days

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 2 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Certificate Details

Subject:forms.gle
Issuer:WR3
Valid Until:11/27/2025 (82 days)
SANs:forms.gle

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

85/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

DNS Records

A Records:199.36.158.100
AAAA Records:2620:0:890::100
Name Servers:
ns1.googledomains.comDNS only
ns2.googledomains.comDNS only
ns3.googledomains.comDNS only
ns4.googledomains.comDNS only

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

100/100
Score

Good Network Security Posture

LOW

No unnecessary services detected on common risky ports

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The page is a simple HTML document with inline styles and a base64-encoded image. It uses the Roboto font family and minimal CSS for layout. No JavaScript or external scripts are loaded. The hosting is on Google infrastructure with HTTPS enabled. The page lacks advanced technical features such as frameworks, CMS, or analytics. Performance is expected to be fast due to minimal content. Mobile optimization is basic but present via viewport meta tag. Accessibility is limited due to minimal content and lack of ARIA or semantic tags. SEO optimization is poor given the lack of metadata beyond the title tag.
Analyze Another Website