Skip to main content

Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report

monologue.to
17 Feb 2026, 18:23 UTC · 14.6s ·v26.19.22 · SHA-3-512: d6d0✱✱✱✱ Verify
Recon ModeRecon Mode Snapshot Re-analyze New Domain
DNS Security & Trust Posture
Risk Level: Medium Risk
4 protocols configured, 4 not configured, 1 unavailable on provider Domain appears to be in deliberate DMARC monitoring phase with aggregate reporting enabled Why we go beyond letter grades
Suggested Scanner Configuration High Confidence
Based on 12 historical scans of this domain
Parameter Current Suggested Severity Rationale
timeout_seconds 5s 8s low Average scan duration is 51.7s, suggesting DNS responses are slow for this domain. Increasing timeout from 5s to 8s prevents premature resolution failures.
RFC 8767
Suggestions require explicit approval before applying. No automatic changes will be made.
Email Spoofing
Vulnerable
Brand Impersonation
Not Setup
DNS Tampering
Unsigned
Certificate Control
Configured
Recommended
Move DMARC policy from 'none' to 'quarantine' or 'reject'
Monitoring
SPF configured with soft fail (~all) — consider upgrading to hard fail (-all), DMARC record has configuration warnings — review recommended, DKIM signing inferred from provider — could not directly verify selector
Configured
SPF, DMARC (with warnings), DKIM (inferred via Google Workspace), CAA
Not Configured
MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI, DNSSEC
Unavailable on Provider
DANE
Priority Actions 4 total Achievable posture: Low Risk
High Upgrade DMARC from p=none

Your DMARC policy is monitor-only (p=none). Upgrade to p=quarantine or p=reject after reviewing reports to actively prevent spoofing.

A quarantine or reject policy instructs receivers to take action on failing mail.
FieldValue
TypeTXT
Host_dmarc.monologue.to (DMARC policy record)
Valuev=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@monologue.to
Medium Enable DNSSEC

DNSSEC is not enabled for this domain. DNSSEC provides cryptographic authentication of DNS responses, preventing cache poisoning and DNS spoofing attacks.

Low Add TLS-RPT Reporting

TLS-RPT (TLS Reporting) sends you reports about TLS connection failures when other servers try to deliver mail to your domain.

TLS-RPT sends you reports about TLS connection failures to your mail servers.
FieldValue
TypeTXT
Host_smtp._tls.monologue.to (SMTP TLS reporting record)
Valuev=TLSRPTv1; rua=mailto:tls-reports@monologue.to
Low Deploy MTA-STS

MTA-STS enforces TLS encryption for inbound mail delivery, preventing downgrade attacks on your mail transport.

MTA-STS tells sending servers to require TLS when delivering mail to your domain.
FieldValue
TypeTXT
Host_mta-sts.monologue.to (MTA-STS policy record)
Valuev=STSv1; id=monologue.to
Registrar (RDAP) OBSERVED LIVE
NAMECHEAP
Where domain was purchased
Email Service Provider
Unknown
Moderately Protected
Web Hosting
Unknown
Where website is hosted
DNS Hosting
Unknown
Where DNS records are edited
Email Security Methodology Can this domain be impersonated by email? Yes DMARC is monitor-only (p=none)

SPF Record RFC 7208 §4 Verified

Does this domain declare who may send email on its behalf? No
Warning

No SPF record found

RFC 7208 Deviation: This SPF record deviates from RFC 7208 requirements.
RFC Failure Mode: Unlike DMARC (where unknown tags are silently ignored per RFC 7489 §6.3), SPF with unrecognized mechanisms produces a PermError per RFC 7208 §4.6 — the record fails loudly rather than silently.
Related CVEs: CVE-2024-7208 (multi-tenant domain spoofing), CVE-2024-7209 (shared SPF exploitation), CVE-2023-51764 (SMTP smuggling bypasses SPF)

DMARC Policy RFC 7489 §6.3 Verified

Are spoofed emails rejected or quarantined? Monitoring only
Warning p=none

DMARC in monitoring mode (p=none) - spoofed mail still delivered, no enforcement

v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email
Policy p=none provides no protection - spoofed emails reach inboxes
No forensic reporting (ruf) tag — this is correct. Many tools flag the absence of ruf= as a gap. It is not. RFC 7489 §7.3 warns that forensic reports can expose PII (full message headers or bodies). Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo do not honour ruf= requests regardless. The DMARCbis draft (draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis) has formally removed ruf= from the specification, confirming its deprecation. Omitting ruf= is the recommended modern practice. RFC 7489 §7.3 — Forensic Reports
Advanced cryptographic posture detected. Domain appears to be in deliberate DMARC monitoring phase with aggregate reporting enabled
RFC 7489 Present — DMARC record published per RFC 7489 §6.3.
DMARCbis (Pending): draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis will elevate DMARC to Standards Track, obsolete RFC 7489, replace pct= with t= (testing flag), add np= (non-existent subdomain policy), and mandate DNS tree walk for policy discovery instead of the Public Suffix List.
Related CVEs: CVE-2024-49040 (Exchange sender spoofing), CVE-2024-7208 (multi-tenant DMARC bypass)

DKIM Records RFC 6376 §3.6 Verified

Are outbound emails cryptographically signed? Provider-managed
Provider Verified

DKIM not discoverable via common selectors (large providers use rotating selectors)

Google Workspace detected as primary mail platform — DKIM signing is managed by the provider. The primary provider may use custom selectors not discoverable through standard checks.
Know your DKIM selector? Re-scan with a custom selector to verify.
RFC 6376 (Provider-Managed) — DKIM signing managed by the detected mail provider per RFC 6376.
Known Vulnerabilities: DKIM l= tag body length vulnerability (attacker appends unsigned content to signed mail), weak key exploitation (keys below 1024-bit are cryptographically breakable per RFC 6376 §3.3.3), DKIM replay attacks (re-sending legitimately signed messages at scale)

MTA-STS RFC 8461 §3 Verified

Can attackers downgrade SMTP to intercept mail? Not prevented
Warning

No MTA-STS record found

MTA-STS policy enforcement is evaluated in Mail Transport Security below.

TLS-RPT RFC 8460 §3 Verified

Will failures in TLS delivery be reported? No reporting
Warning

No TLS-RPT record found

DMARC External Reporting Authorization RFC 7489 §7.1

Are external report receivers authorized? Yes — all authorized
Success

All 1 external reporting domains properly authorized

External Domain Authorization Auth Record
vali.email Authorized v=DMARC1;

DANE / TLSA Verified Recon Methodology Can mail servers establish identity without a public CA? No
RFC 7672 §3 RFC 6698 §2 Not Available

DANE not available — Google Workspace does not support inbound DANE/TLSA on its MX infrastructure

DANE not deployable on Google Workspace

Google Workspace supports DANE for outbound mail verification but does not publish TLSA records for its MX hosts.

Recommended alternative: MTA-STS

Note: Google Workspace does validate DANE/TLSA when sending mail to DANE-enabled recipients (outbound DANE).


Email Transport Security

Two mechanisms protect email in transit. DANE is the primary standard; MTA-STS is the alternative for domains that cannot deploy DNSSEC:

  • DNSSEC + DANE (RFC 7672) — Cryptographic chain of trust from DNS root to mail server certificate. Eliminates reliance on certificate authorities. No trust-on-first-use weakness. Requires DNSSEC.
  • MTA-STS (RFC 8461) — HTTPS-based policy requiring TLS for mail delivery. Works without DNSSEC but relies on CA trust and is vulnerable on first use (§10). Created for domains where “deploying DNSSEC is undesirable or impractical” (§2).
This domain has neither DANE nor MTA-STS. Since Google Workspace does not support inbound DANE, deploy MTA-STS (RFC 8461) to enforce TLS and protect against downgrade attacks.

Industry trend: Microsoft Exchange Online enforces inbound DANE with DNSSEC (GA October 2024), and providers like Proton Mail and Fastmail also support DANE. Google Workspace does not support DANE and relies on MTA-STS. Both mechanisms coexist because DANE is backward-compatible — senders skip the check if the domain isn't DNSSEC-signed (RFC 7672 §1.3).


Brand Security Can this brand be convincingly faked? Likely DMARC is monitor-only (p=none) — spoofed mail is not blocked

BIMI BIMI Spec Verified Warning

Is the brand identity verified and displayed in inboxes? No

No BIMI record found

CAA RFC 8659 §4 Verified Success

Does this domain restrict who can issue TLS certificates? Yes

CAA configured - only Let's Encrypt can issue certificates

Authorized CAs: Let's Encrypt
0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
Since September 2025, all public CAs must verify domain control from multiple geographic locations (Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration, CA/B Forum Ballot SC-067). CAA records are now checked from multiple network perspectives before certificate issuance.
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (security.txt) Is there a verified way to report security issues? No RFC 9116

No security.txt found

A security.txt file at /.well-known/security.txt provides security researchers with a standardized way to report vulnerabilities. See securitytxt.org for a generator.

AI Surface Scanner Beta Is this domain discoverable by AI — and protected from abuse? No

No AI governance measures detected

llms.txt llmstxt.org
Is this domain publishing AI-readable brand context? No
No llms.txt found
No llms-full.txt found
AI Crawler Governance (robots.txt) RFC 9309 IETF Draft
Are AI crawlers explicitly allowed or blocked? Not blocked
No AI crawler blocking observed — no blocking directives found in robots.txt
Content-Usage Directive IETF Draft
Does the site express AI content-usage preferences? Not Configured
No Content-Usage directive detected. The IETF AI Preferences working group is developing a Content-Usage: directive for robots.txt that lets site owners declare whether their content may be used for AI training and inference. This is an active draft, not yet a ratified standard.
Example: Add Content-Usage: ai=no to robots.txt to deny AI training, or Content-Usage: ai=allow to explicitly permit it. Without this directive, AI crawler behavior depends on individual crawler policies and User-agent rules.
AI Recommendation Poisoning
Is this site trying to manipulate AI recommendations? No
No AI recommendation poisoning indicators found
Hidden Prompt Artifacts
Is hidden prompt-injection text present in the source? No
No hidden prompt-like artifacts detected
Evidence Log (1 item)
TypeDetailSeverityConfidence
robots_txt_no_ai_blocks robots.txt found but no AI-specific blocking directives low Observed
Public Exposure Checks Are sensitive files or secrets exposed? No

No exposed secrets detected in public page source — same-origin, non-intrusive scan of publicly visible page source and scripts.

No exposed secrets, API keys, or credentials were detected in publicly accessible page source or scripts.
What type of scan is this?

This is OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) collection — we check the same publicly accessible URLs that any web browser could visit. No authentication is bypassed, no ports are probed, no vulnerabilities are exploited.

Is this a PCI compliance scan? No. PCI DSS requires scans performed by an Approved Scanning Vendor (ASV) certified by the PCI Security Standards Council. DNS Tool is not an ASV. If you need PCI compliance scanning, engage a certified ASV such as Qualys, Tenable, or Trustwave.

Is this a penetration test? No. Penetration testing involves active exploitation attempts against systems with authorization. Our checks are passive observation of publicly accessible resources — the same methodology used by Shodan, Mozilla Observatory, and other OSINT platforms.

Mail Transport Security Beta Is mail transport encrypted and verified? No No MTA-STS or DANE — mail transport encryption is opportunistic only

Transport security inferred from 1 signal(s) — no enforcement policy active

Policy Assessment Primary
  • Google Workspace enforces TLS 1.2+ with valid certificates on all inbound/outbound mail
Telemetry
TLS-RPT not configured — domain has no visibility into TLS delivery failures from real senders
Live Probe Supplementary
Skipped — SMTP probe skipped — outbound TCP port 25 is blocked by cloud hosting provider. This is standard for all major cloud platforms (AWS, GCP, Azure, Replit) as an anti-spam measure. Transport security is assessed via DNS policy records above, which is the standards-aligned primary method per NIST SP 800-177 Rev. 1.
Infrastructure Intelligence Who hosts this domain and what services power it? Direct

ASN / Network Success

Resolved 1 unique ASN(s) across 2 IP address(es)

ASNNameCountry
AS16509 Amazon.com, Inc. NL
IPv4 Mappings:
31.43.160.6AS16509 (31.43.160.0/24)
31.43.161.6AS16509 (31.43.161.0/24)

Edge / CDN Success

Domain appears to use direct origin hosting

SaaS TXT Footprint Success

No SaaS services detected

Detects SaaS services that leave DNS TXT verification records (e.g., domain ownership proofs). Does not detect all SaaS platforms — only those indicated by DNS.


Domain Security Methodology Can DNS responses be tampered with in transit? Possible DNSSEC is not deployed, DNS responses are not cryptographically verified

DNSSEC RFC 4033 §2 Verified Unsigned

DNSSEC not configured - DNS responses are unsigned

Domain does not use DNSSEC. Enable in your registrar's DNS settings (look for "DNSSEC" or "DS records" section).

NS Delegation Verified

2 nameserver(s) configured

Nameservers: ns1.vercel-dns.com ns2.vercel-dns.com
Multi-Resolver Verification Recon: Consensus reached - 4 resolvers (Cloudflare, Google, Quad9, OpenDNS, DNS4EU) agree on DNS records
Traffic & Routing Where does this domain's traffic actually terminate?

AIPv4 Address

31.43.160.6
31.43.161.6
Where the domain points for web traffic

AAAAIPv6 Address

No AAAA records
IPv6 not configured

MXMail Servers

1 smtp.google.com.
Priority + mail server for email delivery

SRVServices

No SRV records
No service-specific routing configured
Web: Reachable (2 IPv4, 0 IPv6) Mail: 1 server Services: None
Subdomain Discovery RFC 6962 Recon LIVE What subdomains and infrastructure are exposed in certificate logs? 206 subdomains discovered
How did we find these?
Certificate Transparency Logs Unavailable The results below are from DNS probing only and may be significantly incomplete. CT logs typically reveal hundreds or thousands of additional subdomains via certificate issuance history (RFC 6962).
99 certificates analyzed 206 current 0 expired Source: Certificate Transparency + DNS Intelligence
Subdomains discovered via CT logs (RFC 6962), DNS probing of common service names, and CNAME chain traversal.
Wildcard certificate detected: *.monologue.to Active 0 cert
No explicit SANs found on wildcard certificates. Subdomains covered by this wildcard won't appear individually in CT logs (RFC 6962).
DNS probing and CNAME chain traversal were used to discover additional subdomains below.
Subdomain Source Status Provider / CNAME Certificates First Seen Issuer(s)
academy.monologue.to DNS Current
account.monologue.to DNS Current
accounts.monologue.to DNS Current
admin.monologue.to DNS Current
alerts.monologue.to DNS Current
analytics.monologue.to DNS Current
api.monologue.to CT Log Current um1ceo6q.up.railway.app 8 2026-02-02T01:27:07 Let's Encrypt
app.monologue.to DNS Current
appointments.monologue.to DNS Current
apps.monologue.to DNS Current
archive.monologue.to DNS Current
assets.monologue.to DNS Current
auth.monologue.to DNS Current
autoconfig.monologue.to DNS Current
autodiscover.monologue.to DNS Current
backup.monologue.to DNS Current
backup1.monologue.to DNS Current
backup2.monologue.to DNS Current
beta.monologue.to DNS Current
billing.monologue.to DNS Current
bitbucket.monologue.to DNS Current
blog.monologue.to DNS Current
booking.monologue.to DNS Current
bucket.monologue.to DNS Current
build.monologue.to DNS Current
cache.monologue.to DNS Current
cal.monologue.to DNS Current
calendar.monologue.to DNS Current
catalog.monologue.to DNS Current
cdn.monologue.to DNS Current
chat.monologue.to DNS Current
checkout.monologue.to DNS Current
ci.monologue.to DNS Current
client.monologue.to DNS Current
clients.monologue.to DNS Current
cloud.monologue.to DNS Current
community.monologue.to DNS Current
conference.monologue.to DNS Current
confluence.monologue.to DNS Current
connect.monologue.to DNS Current
corp.monologue.to DNS Current
cpanel.monologue.to DNS Current
crm.monologue.to DNS Current
dashboard.monologue.to DNS Current
database.monologue.to DNS Current
db.monologue.to DNS Current
demo.monologue.to DNS Current
deploy.monologue.to DNS Current
dev.monologue.to DNS Current
devices.monologue.to DNS Current
dns.monologue.to DNS Current
dns1.monologue.to DNS Current
dns2.monologue.to DNS Current
dnstool.monologue.to DNS Current
doc.monologue.to DNS Current
docs.monologue.to DNS Current
download.monologue.to DNS Current
edge.monologue.to DNS Current
elastic.monologue.to DNS Current
email.monologue.to DNS Current
erp.monologue.to DNS Current
es.monologue.to DNS Current
evals.monologue.to CT Log Current 4 2026-01-04T02:27:54 Let's Encrypt
exchange.monologue.to DNS Current
faq.monologue.to DNS Current
feedback.monologue.to CT Log Current 13 2026-01-09T19:10:45 Google Trust Services, Let's Encrypt
files.monologue.to DNS Current
firewall.monologue.to DNS Current
forum.monologue.to DNS Current
ftp.monologue.to DNS Current
gateway.monologue.to DNS Current
geo.monologue.to DNS Current
git.monologue.to DNS Current
github.monologue.to DNS Current
gitlab.monologue.to DNS Current
go.monologue.to CT Log Current 6 2025-12-25T11:07:40 Let's Encrypt
grafana.monologue.to DNS Current
gw.monologue.to DNS Current
help.monologue.to DNS Current
hog.monologue.to CT Log Current 6 2026-01-13T02:27:53 Let's Encrypt
host.monologue.to DNS Current
hr.monologue.to DNS Current
id.monologue.to DNS Current
images.monologue.to DNS Current
imap.monologue.to DNS Current
img.monologue.to DNS Current
internal.monologue.to DNS Current
intranet.monologue.to DNS Current
inventory.monologue.to DNS Current
invoice.monologue.to DNS Current
jenkins.monologue.to DNS Current
jira.monologue.to DNS Current
kb.monologue.to DNS Current
lb.monologue.to DNS Current
learn.monologue.to DNS Current
lms.monologue.to DNS Current
loadbalancer.monologue.to DNS Current
login.monologue.to DNS Current
logs.monologue.to DNS Current
m.monologue.to DNS Current
mail.monologue.to DNS Current
manage.monologue.to DNS Current
management.monologue.to DNS Current
map.monologue.to DNS Current
maps.monologue.to DNS Current
mdm.monologue.to DNS Current
media.monologue.to DNS Current
meet.monologue.to DNS Current
memcached.monologue.to DNS Current
metrics.monologue.to DNS Current
mobile.monologue.to DNS Current
monitor.monologue.to DNS Current
mq.monologue.to DNS Current
mta.monologue.to DNS Current
mx.monologue.to DNS Current
mx1.monologue.to DNS Current
mx2.monologue.to DNS Current
mysql.monologue.to DNS Current
nagios.monologue.to DNS Current
news.monologue.to DNS Current
notify.monologue.to DNS Current
ns1.monologue.to DNS Current
ns2.monologue.to DNS Current
ns3.monologue.to DNS Current
ns4.monologue.to DNS Current
office.monologue.to DNS Current
orders.monologue.to DNS Current
owa.monologue.to DNS Current
panel.monologue.to DNS Current
partner.monologue.to DNS Current
partners.monologue.to DNS Current
pay.monologue.to DNS Current
payment.monologue.to DNS Current
pbx.monologue.to DNS Current
phone.monologue.to DNS Current
pop.monologue.to DNS Current
portal.monologue.to DNS Current
postgres.monologue.to DNS Current
preview.monologue.to DNS Current
print.monologue.to DNS Current
printer.monologue.to DNS Current
prometheus.monologue.to DNS Current
proxy.monologue.to DNS Current
proxy1.monologue.to DNS Current
proxy2.monologue.to DNS Current
queue.monologue.to DNS Current
rabbitmq.monologue.to DNS Current
redis.monologue.to DNS Current
register.monologue.to DNS Current
relay.monologue.to DNS Current
remote.monologue.to DNS Current
repo.monologue.to DNS Current
report.monologue.to DNS Current
reports.monologue.to DNS Current
s3.monologue.to DNS Current
sandbox.monologue.to DNS Current
scan.monologue.to DNS Current
schedule.monologue.to DNS Current
screen.monologue.to DNS Current
search.monologue.to DNS Current
secure.monologue.to DNS Current
server.monologue.to DNS Current
server1.monologue.to DNS Current
server2.monologue.to DNS Current
sftp.monologue.to DNS Current
share.monologue.to DNS Current
shop.monologue.to DNS Current
signup.monologue.to DNS Current
sip.monologue.to DNS Current
slack.monologue.to DNS Current
smtp.monologue.to DNS Current
sql.monologue.to DNS Current
ssh.monologue.to DNS Current
ssl.monologue.to DNS Current
sso.monologue.to DNS Current
stage.monologue.to DNS Current
staging.monologue.to DNS Current
static.monologue.to DNS Current
status.monologue.to DNS Current
storage.monologue.to DNS Current
store.monologue.to DNS Current
support.monologue.to DNS Current
teams.monologue.to DNS Current
tel.monologue.to DNS Current
test.monologue.to DNS Current
ticket.monologue.to DNS Current
tickets.monologue.to DNS Current
tls.monologue.to DNS Current
tool.monologue.to DNS Current
tools.monologue.to DNS Current
tracking.monologue.to DNS Current
training.monologue.to DNS Current
uat.monologue.to DNS Current
video.monologue.to DNS Current
voip.monologue.to DNS Current
vpn.monologue.to DNS Current
waf.monologue.to DNS Current
web.monologue.to DNS Current
webmail.monologue.to DNS Current
wiki.monologue.to DNS Current
work.monologue.to DNS Current
www.monologue.to CT Log Current 26 2026-01-13T12:29:20 Let's Encrypt
www2.monologue.to DNS Current
www3.monologue.to DNS Current
zabbix.monologue.to DNS Current
zoom.monologue.to DNS Current
Δ No Propagation Issues: All DNS records are synchronized between resolver and authoritative nameserver.
DNS Intelligence What does DNS look like right now — and what changed over time?
DNS Evidence Diff Side-by-side comparison
Resolver Records (Public DNS cache)
Authoritative Records (Source of truth)
A Synchronized 2 / 2 records
31.43.160.6
31.43.160.6
31.43.161.6
31.43.161.6
AAAA 0 / 0 records
No records
No records
CAA RFC 8659 §4 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
DMARC _dmarc.monologue.to RFC 7489 §6.3 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email
v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email
MX RFC 5321 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
1 smtp.google.com.
1 smtp.google.com.
NS RFC 1035 Synchronized 2 / 2 records
ns2.vercel-dns.com.
ns1.vercel-dns.com.
ns1.vercel-dns.com.
ns2.vercel-dns.com.
SOA RFC 1035 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
ns1.vercel-dns.com. hostmaster.nsone.net. 1748408008 43200 7200 1209600 600
ns1.vercel-dns.com. hostmaster.nsone.net. 1748408008 43200 7200 1209600 600
TXT RFC 7208 §4 Synchronized 2 / 2 records
google-site-verification=QYMpLQ9pDIaEf_aj-GTSEFe7Der7pbXGhK0y0TeAmjY
google-site-verification=QYMpLQ9pDIaEf_aj-GTSEFe7Der7pbXGhK0y0TeAmjY
google-site-verification=_pt0KLpY_aYOHds22kpjuyGzMKugiDVnO6J7eHRY8GI
google-site-verification=_pt0KLpY_aYOHds22kpjuyGzMKugiDVnO6J7eHRY8GI
DNS History Timeline BETA
Your key is sent directly to SecurityTrails and is never stored on our servers. Get an API key
DNS History Timeline BETA

When was a record added, removed, or changed — and could that change be the problem?

Analyze Another Domain

Confirm Your Email Configuration

This tool analyzes DNS records, but to verify actual email delivery, send a test email to Red Sift Investigate. Their tool shows exactly how your emails arrive, including SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass/fail results in the headers.

DATA FRESHNESS & METHODOLOGY

All security-critical records (SPF, DMARC, DKIM, DANE/TLSA, DNSSEC, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI, CAA) are queried live from authoritative nameservers and cross-referenced against 5 independent public DNS resolvers (Cloudflare, Google, Quad9, OpenDNS, DNS4EU) at the time of each analysis. No security verdict uses cached data.

Registrar data (RDAP) is cached for up to 24 hours because domain ownership and registration details change infrequently. Certificate Transparency logs (subdomain discovery via RFC 6962) are cached for 1 hour because CT entries are append-only historical records. Sections using cached data are marked with a CACHED badge; live queries show LIVE.

Intelligence Sources

This analysis used 4 DNS resolvers (consensus), reverse DNS (PTR), Team Cymru (ASN attribution), IANA RDAP (registrar), crt.sh (CT logs), and SMTP probing (transport). All using open-standard protocols.

Full List
Verify Report Integrity SHA-3-512 Has this report been altered since generation? Verify below

This cryptographic hash seals the analysis data, domain, timestamp, and tool version into a tamper-evident fingerprint. Any modification to the report data will produce a different hash. This is distinct from the posture hash (used for drift detection) — the integrity hash uniquely identifies this specific report instance.

d6d076951d36688b6ca55e14fcef62be3434d45a7f43ab0b6a6e8634c99719199d5c45f9727e843e07d98112f02e729978c95decdc38199558cb2366b17c8602
Evaluations reference 12 RFCs. Methods are reproducible using the verification commands provided. Results reflect DNS state at 17 Feb 2026, 18:23 UTC.

Download the intelligence dump and verify its integrity, like you would a Kali ISO or any critical artifact. The SHA-3-512 checksum covers every byte of the download — deterministic serialization ensures identical hashes across downloads.

After downloading, verify with any of these commands:

Tip: cd ~/Downloads first (or wherever you saved the files).

OpenSSL + Sidecar (macOS, Linux, WSL)
cat dns-intelligence-monologue.to.json.sha3 && echo '---' && openssl dgst -sha3-512 dns-intelligence-monologue.to.json
Python 3 (cross-platform)
python3 -c "import hashlib; print(hashlib.sha3_512(open('dns-intelligence-monologue.to.json','rb').read()).hexdigest())"
sha3sum (coreutils 9+)
sha3sum -a 512 dns-intelligence-monologue.to.json
Compare the output against the .sha3 file or the checksum API at /api/analysis/1297/checksum. Hash algorithm: SHA-3-512 (Keccak, NIST FIPS 202).

Every finding in this report is backed by DNS queries you can run yourself. These vetted one-liners reproduce the exact checks used to build this report for monologue.to. Our analysis adds multi-resolver consensus, RFC-based evaluation, and cross-referencing — but the underlying data is always independently verifiable. We are intelligence analysts, not gatekeepers.

DNS Records

Query A records (IPv4) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer monologue.to A
Query AAAA records (IPv6) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer monologue.to AAAA
Query MX records (mail servers) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer monologue.to MX
Query NS records (nameservers) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer monologue.to NS
Query TXT records RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer monologue.to TXT

Email Authentication

Check SPF record RFC 7208
dig +short monologue.to TXT | grep -i spf
Check DMARC policy RFC 7489
dig +short _dmarc.monologue.to TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'default' RFC 6376
dig +short default._domainkey.monologue.to TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'google' RFC 6376
dig +short google._domainkey.monologue.to TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'selector1' RFC 6376
dig +short selector1._domainkey.monologue.to TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'selector2' RFC 6376
dig +short selector2._domainkey.monologue.to TXT

Domain Security

Check DNSSEC DNSKEY records RFC 4035
dig +dnssec +noall +answer monologue.to DNSKEY
Check DNSSEC DS records RFC 4035
dig +noall +answer monologue.to DS
Validate DNSSEC chain (requires DNSSEC-validating resolver) RFC 4035
dig +dnssec +cd monologue.to A @1.1.1.1

Transport Security

Check TLSA record for smtp.google.com RFC 7672
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.smtp.google.com TLSA
Verify TLS certificate on primary MX (smtp.google.com) RFC 6698
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect smtp.google.com:25 -servername smtp.google.com 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -subject -dates
Check MTA-STS DNS record RFC 8461
dig +short _mta-sts.monologue.to TXT
Fetch MTA-STS policy file RFC 8461
curl -sL https://mta-sts.monologue.to/.well-known/mta-sts.txt
Check TLS-RPT record RFC 8460
dig +short _smtp._tls.monologue.to TXT

Brand & Trust

Check BIMI record BIMI Draft
dig +short default._bimi.monologue.to TXT
Check CAA records (certificate authority authorization) RFC 8659
dig +noall +answer monologue.to CAA

DNS Records

Check HTTPS/SVCB records RFC 9460
dig +noall +answer monologue.to HTTPS

Domain Security

Check CDS/CDNSKEY automation records RFC 7344
dig +noall +answer monologue.to CDS

Infrastructure Intelligence

RDAP domain registration lookup RFC 9083
curl -sL 'https://rdap.org/domain/monologue.to' | python3 -m json.tool | head -50

Transport Security

Test STARTTLS on primary MX (smtp.google.com) RFC 3207
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect smtp.google.com:25 -servername smtp.google.com </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5

Infrastructure Intelligence

Search Certificate Transparency logs RFC 6962
curl -s 'https://crt.sh/?q=%25.monologue.to&output=json' | python3 -c "import json,sys; [print(e['name_value']) for e in json.load(sys.stdin)]" | sort -u | head -20
Check security.txt RFC 9116
curl -sL https://monologue.to/.well-known/security.txt | head -20

AI Surface

Check for llms.txt
curl -sI https://monologue.to/llms.txt | head -5
Check robots.txt for AI crawler rules
curl -s https://monologue.to/robots.txt | grep -i -E 'GPTBot|ChatGPT|Claude|Anthropic|Google-Extended|CCBot|PerplexityBot'

Infrastructure Intelligence

ASN lookup for 31.43.160.6 (Team Cymru)
dig +short 6.160.43.31.origin.asn.cymru.com TXT
ASN lookup for 31.43.161.6 (Team Cymru)
dig +short 6.161.43.31.origin.asn.cymru.com TXT
Commands use dig, openssl, and curl — standard tools available on macOS, Linux, and WSL. Results may vary slightly due to DNS propagation timing and resolver caching.
Intelligence Confidence Audit Engine Verified · 9/9 Evaluated
How confident are these results? Each protocol is independently verified against RFC standards. No self-awarded badges.
SPF
Verified 5021 runs
DKIM
Verified 4838 runs
DMARC
Verified 5005 runs
DANE/TLSA
Verified 4822 runs
DNSSEC
Verified 5002 runs
BIMI
Verified 4836 runs
MTA-STS
Verified 4839 runs
TLS-RPT
Verified 4843 runs
CAA
Verified 4835 runs
Maturity: Development Verified Consistent Gold Gold Master
Running Multi-Source Intelligence Audit

monologue.to

0s
DNS records — Cloudflare, Google, Quad9, OpenDNS, DNS4EU
Email auth — SPF, DMARC, DKIM selectors
DNSSEC chain of trust & DANE/TLSA
Certificate Transparency & subdomain discovery
SMTP transport & STARTTLS verification
MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI, CAA
Registrar & infrastructure analysis
Intelligence Classification & Interpretation

Every result includes terminal commands you can run to independently verify the underlying data. No proprietary magic.