Back to results

Digital exposure report

example.com

Critical findings in the observed public configuration. Some basic protections were not detected.

Scanned: 2026-11-11 08:39 UTC

Partial coverage: the score is based on 95% of applicable check weight. 1 unverified check(s) are excluded, not counted as failures.

F
55/100

What to do first

  1. 1.

    Tell browsers to always use the secure version

    Helps browsers use HTTPS on future visits after they have received the policy.

    Who can fix it: Your web host

    How to verify after the fix

    curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "Strict-Transport-Security"
  2. 2.

    Limit what scripts your pages are allowed to run

    This adds one layer of protection against injected scripts.

    Who can fix it: Your website developer or web host

    How to verify after the fix

    curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "Content-Security-Policy"

A starting point, not a security guarantee.

What this grade means

Tested hostname
example.com
Website request
GET https://example.com/
Scan time
2026-11-11 08:39:29 UTC
Grading method
Version 2How grading works
Unverified or excluded checks
  • DKIM — digital signature on email · Not detected (common selectors only)

This is a snapshot of the public configuration checks listed in this report. It does not verify the site's owner, business legitimacy, application security, or absence of vulnerabilities. It is not a security certification.

Score by category

Email security24/25Spoofing email from this domain is hard.
Encryption & certificate18/25Encryption is in place, but a gap could expose users.
Browser protections0/30Several browser hardening headers are missing, which removes layers of protection against script injection and framing.
DNS infrastructure10/15The domain's infrastructure works, but recommended hardening is missing.

Fix priorities

  1. 1.HighHSTS — enforce encryption in the browser · Hardening gap+8
  2. 2.HighHTTP → HTTPS redirect · Hardening gap+7
  3. 3.MediumClickjacking protection · Hardening gap+5
  4. 4.MediumCSP — protection from script injection · Hardening gap+8
  5. 5.LowCAA — who may issue certificates · Hardening gap+5
  6. 6.LowX-Content-Type-Options · Hardening gap+4
  7. 7.LowReferrer-Policy · Hardening gap+3
  8. 8.LowPermissions-Policy · Hardening gap+2
  9. 9.LowDMARC — anti-spoofing policy · Hardening gap+1

To verify

Couldn't be confirmed from public data, so excluded from the score. Checking them clarifies your posture; it doesn't guarantee a score change.

  • DKIM — digital signature on email

Findings

SPF — who may send mail for the domain

Passed · Severity: OK · 10/10

An authorized sender list is defined and mail from other servers is rejected.

Valid SPF record with -all. 0 of the 10 allowed DNS lookups.

Source data: DNS TXT example.com
v=spf1 -all
$ dig +short TXT example.com
Documentation: RFC 7208 — SPF (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7208) · M3AAWG — Email Authentication Best Practices (https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg-email-authentication-recommended-best-practices-09-2020.pdf)

DMARC — anti-spoofing policy

Needs attention · Severity: Low · Hardening gap · 14/15

Forged email in the company's name is blocked by mail servers.

Policy p=reject. No rua — no reports on spoofing attempts are received.

Source data: DNS TXT _dmarc.example.com
v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s
$ dig +short TXT _dmarc.example.com
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Keep your current p=reject enforcement and edit the existing record in place — do not replace it with p=none.
  2. Add rua=mailto:… to the existing record so you receive aggregate reports. Nothing else changes.
_dmarc.example.com.  TXT  "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:dmarc@example.com"

Safety: DNS changes are made only at your DNS provider. This tool only reads public data and changes nothing on the domain. Your domain already enforces DMARC. Edit the record in place; never roll back to p=none.

Documentation: RFC 7489 — DMARC (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7489) · dmarc.org — FAQ (https://dmarc.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions/)

DKIM — digital signature on email

Not detected (common selectors only) · Severity: OK · Not scored

No DKIM key was found under the common selectors we probed. That doesn't mean DKIM is missing — selectors can't be listed from public DNS. Not scored.

A missing name for a probed selector (NXDOMAIN/NODATA) only means that selector isn't published. DKIM is marked unverified and excluded from the score. Check a sent message's Authentication-Results for dkim=pass and its s= selector.

Source data: DNS TXT <selector>._domainkey.example.com
Selectors checked: google, selector1, selector2, default, k1, s1, s2, dkim, mail, smtp — no key found
google._domainkey: answer
selector1._domainkey: answer
selector2._domainkey: answer
default._domainkey: answer
k1._domainkey: answer
s1._domainkey: answer
s2._domainkey: answer
dkim._domainkey: answer
mail._domainkey: answer
smtp._domainkey: answer
$ dig +short TXT google._domainkey.example.com
Documentation: RFC 6376 — DKIM (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6376) · M3AAWG — Email Authentication Best Practices (https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg-email-authentication-recommended-best-practices-09-2020.pdf)

MX — inbound mail routing

Info · Severity: OK · unscored

The domain publishes a Null MX: it declares that it accepts no email.

MX 0 . (RFC 7505) declares no inbound mail. It doesn't prove no mail is sent and is not a substitute for SPF or DMARC.

Source data: DNS MX example.com
0 .
$ dig +short MX example.com
Documentation: RFC 7505 — Null MX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7505) · RFC 5321 §5.1 — Locating the target host (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321#section-5.1)

HTTPS available

Passed · Severity: OK · 10/10

The site loads over an encrypted connection.

https://example.com/ returned HTTP 200 (final URL: https://example.com/). Client-side certificate validation passed.

Source data: HTTPS GET https://example.com/
HTTP 200
Final URL: https://example.com/
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/
Documentation: OWASP — Transport Layer Security Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Transport_Layer_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html) · Mozilla — Server Side TLS (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS)

HTTP → HTTPS redirect

Failed · Severity: High · Hardening gap · 0/7

The site is also reachable over an unencrypted connection, so data may travel in plain text on public networks.

http://example.com/ returned HTTP 200 without redirecting to https://.

Source data: HTTP GET http://example.com/ (redirects not followed)
HTTP 200
Location: (none)
$ curl -sI http://example.com/ | grep -iE "^(HTTP|location)"
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Set up a permanent (301) redirect from every HTTP request to HTTPS on the server or CDN.
  2. Then add an HSTS header.
server {
  listen 80;
  server_name example.com www.example.com;
  return 301 https://$host$request_uri;
}

Safety: This change is made on your server. Make sure HTTPS works first, otherwise the site won't load.

Documentation: OWASP — Transport Layer Security Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Transport_Layer_Security_Cheat_Sheet.html) · RFC 6797 — HSTS (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797)

SSL/TLS certificate validity

Passed · Severity: OK · 8/8

The certificate was accepted by a validating TLS client at scan time.

Live TLS handshake succeeded. Latest issuance in CT logs: SSL.com, expiring 2026-12-25 (44 days). CT shows issued certificates, not necessarily the one served — confirm dates with the verify command.

Source data: Certificate Transparency logs (certspotter) for example.com
Live TLS handshake: certificate accepted
CT logs (context only, not scored):
Issuer: SSL.com
Valid from: 2026-09-26
Valid until: 2026-12-25
Names: *.example.com, example.com
Based on Certificate Transparency logs; may not reflect the certificate currently served.
$ echo | openssl s_client -connect example.com:443 -servername example.com 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -issuer -dates
Documentation: Certificate Transparency (https://certificate.transparency.dev/) · Let's Encrypt — Docs (https://letsencrypt.org/docs/) · Mozilla — Server Side TLS (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Server_Side_TLS)

HSTS — enforce encryption in the browser

Failed · Severity: High · Hardening gap · 0/8

Browsers aren't told to always use an encrypted connection, enabling interception attacks on public networks.

No Strict-Transport-Security header. Users are exposed to SSL stripping on the first request.

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
Strict-Transport-Security: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "Strict-Transport-Security"
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Start with a short max-age (300 seconds) and make sure every subdomain works over HTTPS.
  2. Gradually raise it to 31536000 (one year) and add includeSubDomains.
  3. Consider preload only once the policy is stable — removal from the preload list is slow.
/*
  Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains

Safety: This change is made in your server/CDN settings. Test on staging before production. HSTS is cached in the visitor's browser — a long max-age on a site without working HTTPS will block access.

Documentation: MDN — Strict-Transport-Security (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/Strict-Transport-Security) · RFC 6797 — HSTS (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797) · OWASP — HTTP Headers Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Headers_Cheat_Sheet.html)

CSP — protection from script injection

Failed · Severity: Medium · Hardening gap · 0/8

Missing Content-Security-Policy header: this removes one layer of protection against script injection.

No Content-Security-Policy header found.

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
Content-Security-Policy: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "Content-Security-Policy"
Fix recommendation (effort: Complex)
  1. First publish Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only — it blocks nothing, it only reports.
  2. Collect violations for a week or two and tune the policy to your legitimate sources.
  3. Switch to the Content-Security-Policy header and replace 'unsafe-inline' with a nonce or hash.
/*
  Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only: default-src 'self'; script-src 'self'; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self'; frame-ancestors 'self'

Safety: This change is made in your server/CDN settings. Test on staging before production. An overly strict CSP will break scripts — that's why you start in Report-Only mode.

Documentation: MDN — Content Security Policy (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Guides/CSP) · OWASP — CSP Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Content_Security_Policy_Cheat_Sheet.html)

Clickjacking protection

Failed · Severity: Medium · Hardening gap · 0/5

Missing X-Frame-Options / frame-ancestors: this removes one layer of protection against clickjacking.

No valid X-Frame-Options and no frame-ancestors in the CSP.

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
X-Frame-Options: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "X-Frame-Options"
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Add X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN (or DENY if the site is never embedded anywhere).
  2. Also set frame-ancestors in the CSP — the modern alternative.
/*
  X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

Safety: This change is made in your server/CDN settings. Test on staging before production. If partners embed the site in an iframe, add them to frame-ancestors instead of using DENY.

Documentation: MDN — X-Frame-Options (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/X-Frame-Options) · OWASP — Clickjacking Defense (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Clickjacking_Defense_Cheat_Sheet.html)

X-Content-Type-Options

Failed · Severity: Low · Hardening gap · 0/4

The browser may interpret files as code unintentionally.

Missing X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff header (MIME sniffing).

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
X-Content-Type-Options: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "X-Content-Type-Options"
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Add X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff to every response.
/*
  X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

Safety: This change is made in your server/CDN settings. Test on staging before production.

Documentation: MDN — X-Content-Type-Options (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options) · OWASP — HTTP Headers Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Headers_Cheat_Sheet.html)

Referrer-Policy

Failed · Severity: Low · Hardening gap · 0/3

Internal URLs (including parameters) may leak to external sites.

Referrer-Policy is missing; the browser will use its default.

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
Referrer-Policy: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "Referrer-Policy"
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Set Referrer-Policy: strict-origin-when-cross-origin.
/*
  Referrer-Policy: strict-origin-when-cross-origin

Safety: This change is made in your server/CDN settings. Test on staging before production.

Documentation: MDN — Referrer-Policy (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/Referrer-Policy) · OWASP — HTTP Headers Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Headers_Cheat_Sheet.html)

Permissions-Policy

Needs attention · Severity: Low · Hardening gap · 0/2

Access to sensitive features like the camera and location isn't restricted.

Missing Permissions-Policy header.

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
Permissions-Policy: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -i "Permissions-Policy"
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Disable browser features the site doesn't need (camera, microphone, geolocation).
/*
  Permissions-Policy: camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=()

Safety: This change is made in your server/CDN settings. Test on staging before production. Don't disable a feature the site actually uses.

Documentation: MDN — Permissions-Policy (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/Headers/Permissions-Policy) · OWASP — HTTP Headers Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Headers_Cheat_Sheet.html)

Software version disclosure

Passed · Severity: OK · unscored

The server doesn't disclose software versions.

No version numbers found in the Server / X-Powered-By headers.

Source data: Response headers from https://example.com/
server: cloudflare
x-powered-by: (missing)
$ curl -sIL https://example.com/ | grep -iE "^(server|x-powered-by)"
Documentation: OWASP — HTTP Headers Cheat Sheet (https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Headers_Cheat_Sheet.html)

DNSSEC — signed DNS records

Passed · Severity: OK · 7/7

The domain's records are digitally signed and hard to forge.

An AD (Authenticated Data) flag was returned by a validating resolver.

Source data: DNS-over-HTTPS (Cloudflare / Google): AD flag and DS record at the parent
AD = true
$ dig +dnssec example.com | grep -E "flags:.* ad"
Documentation: RFC 4033 — DNSSEC (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4033) · ICANN — DNSSEC: what and why (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dnssec-what-is-it-why-important-2019-03-05-en)

CAA — who may issue certificates

Needs attention · Severity: Low · Hardening gap · 0/5

Any certificate authority can issue a certificate for the domain, raising the risk of mis-issuance.

No CAA records found. RFC 8659 lets the domain owner restrict which CAs are authorized.

Source data: DNS CAA example.com
(no CAA records found)
$ dig +short CAA example.com
Fix recommendation (effort: Easy)
  1. Identify which certificate authority issued your current certificate (see the certificate check).
  2. Publish CAA for that authority only, and add iodef to receive alerts.
example.com.  CAA  0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
example.com.  CAA  0 iodef "mailto:security@example.com"

Safety: DNS changes are made only at your DNS provider. This tool only reads public data and changes nothing on the domain. If your CDN issues certificates on your behalf, include it too — otherwise certificate renewal will fail.

Documentation: RFC 8659 — CAA (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8659)

DNS server redundancy

Passed · Severity: OK · 3/3

The domain is served by several DNS servers, so one server failing won't take it down.

2 NS servers.

Source data: DNS NS example.com
hera.ns.cloudflare.com
elliott.ns.cloudflare.com
$ dig +short NS example.com
Documentation: RFC 2182 — Secondary DNS server operation (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2182)

Indicative alignment

Best-practice mapping of public findings to common frameworks. Passive scanning tests public configuration only; it doesn't prove compliance or a violation.

  • Google & Yahoo sender rules1 observed gaps · 1 unverified
  • PCI DSS v4.04 observed gaps
  • NIS2 / vendor due diligence3 observed gaps
  • SOC 2 / ISO 27001 baseline5 observed gaps

Indicative alignment only, based on public configuration. It doesn't establish whether a framework applies to you, and it isn't legal advice, an audit or a certification.

Public DNS records

Aexample.com104.20.23.154 | 172.66.147.243
AAAAexample.com2606:4700:10::6814:179a | 2606:4700:10::ac42:93f3
MXexample.com0 .
NSexample.comhera.ns.cloudflare.com | elliott.ns.cloudflare.com
TXTexample.comv=spf1 -all | _k2n1y4vw3qtb4skdx9e7dxt97qrmmq9
TXT_dmarc.example.comv=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s
CAAexample.com—
DSexample.com2371 13 2 c988ec423e3880eb8dd8a46fe06ca230ee23f35b578d64e78b29c3e1c83d245a
Passive check only: reading public DNS records, Certificate Transparency logs and ordinary GET requests to the homepage over HTTPS and HTTP. No changes were made to the scanned domain. Results are an indication and do not replace a professional security assessment.

Check your own domain