Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report
Read the verdict first. Descend only as far as the incident requires.
This report keeps the complete technical record while separating decision, interpretation, evidence, and raw reproduction into a stable disclosure gradient.
Add a rua= tag to receive aggregate DMARC reports. Without reporting, you cannot monitor authentication failures.
01!1 Identity & policy · L1 Email Security Can this domain be impersonated by email? SPF DMARC DKIM MTA-STS TLS-RPT MX & Routing Inconclusive
Email Security Methodology Can this domain be impersonated by email? Could not verify a DNS lookup did not complete — re-run before concluding
SPF Record RFC 7208 §4 Gold
SPF valid with industry-standard soft fail (~all), 1/10 lookups
DMARC Policy RFC 7489 §6.3 Gold
_dmarc TXT lookup did not complete (transient resolver failure — SERVFAIL/timeout). Per RFC 7489 §6.6.3, a DNS temporary error is a TempError — never an absence of policy. This result is inconclusive, not a finding that DMARC is absent. Re-run before drawing a conclusion.
DMARC could not be verified — the DNS lookup did not complete (transient SERVFAIL/timeout). This is not a finding that DMARC is absent; re-run before drawing a conclusion.
_dmarc TXT lookup did not complete (transient resolver failure). Per RFC 7489 §6.6.3, a DNS temporary error is a TempError — never an absence of policy. We cannot assert this domain lacks DMARC. This is an inconclusive measurement. Re-run before concluding.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.DKIM Records RFC 6376 §3.6 Gold
Found DKIM for 1 selector(s) with strong keys (2048-bit)
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 Gold
MTA-STS could not be verified: the DNS lookup did not complete (transient SERVFAIL/timeout/network error). This is not evidence that MTA-STS is absent — re-run before concluding it is unconfigured.
MTA-STS policy enforcement is evaluated in Mail Transport Security below.
TLS-RPT RFC 8460 §3 Gold
TLS-RPT could not be verified: the DNS lookup did not complete (transient SERVFAIL/timeout/network error). This is not evidence that TLS-RPT is absent — re-run before concluding it is unconfigured.
02@2 Chain of authority · L1 Domain Security Can DNS answers and certificate issuance be trusted? DANE / TLSA CAA Delegation DNSSEC & NS Could Not Verify
DANE / TLSA Gold Recon Methodology Can mail servers establish identity without a public CA? No
DANE not available — Google Workspace does not support inbound DANE/TLSA on its MX infrastructure
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).
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).
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).
CAA RFC 8659 §4 Gold Inconclusive
CAA could not be verified: the DNS lookup did not complete (transient SERVFAIL/timeout/network error). This is not evidence that CAA is absent — re-run before concluding it is unconfigured.
Delegation Consistency 3 Issues
Delegation consistency: 3 issue(s) found — Parent/child NS delegation alignment: DS↔DNSKEY, glue records, TTL drift, SOA serial sync.
- DNSKEY records missing at child — DS records at parent have no matching keys
- Could not retrieve NS TTL from either parent or child
- Could not retrieve SOA serial from any nameserver
DS ↔ DNSKEY Alignment Misaligned
Glue Record Completeness Complete
NS TTL Comparison Drift
SOA Serial Consistency Consistent
Domain Security Methodology Can DNS responses be tampered with in transit? Unknown DNSSEC could not be confirmed — re-run to verify. This is not evidence the zone is unsigned (RFC 4035).
DNSSEC RFC 4033 §2 Gold Could Not Verify
DNSSEC could not be verified — DNSKEY/DS lookups did not complete (transient resolver failure). This is not evidence that DNSSEC is absent (RFC 4035).
NS Delegation Check Failed Mismatch
Could not retrieve NS records
03#3 Delivery path · L1 Transport Security Will mail transport resist downgrade and interception? STARTTLS MTA-STS policy TLS-RPT
Mail Transport Security Beta Is mail transport encrypted and verified? Unknown Mail transport security could not be verified — the MTA-STS DNS lookup did not complete; a TLS-RPT record alone does not enforce TLS, so this is not evidence enforcement is absent. Re-run before concluding transport encryption is unenforced
All 1 server(s) verified: encrypted transport confirmed via direct SMTP probe and DNS policy
Policy Assessment Primary
- Google Workspace enforces TLS 1.2+ with valid certificates on all inbound/outbound mail
Telemetry
Live Probe Supplementary
| MX Host | STARTTLS | TLS Version | Cipher | Key Exchange | Certificate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
smtp.google.com |
TLSv1.3 | TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 | N/A |
Valid
Expires: 2026-10-28 (66 days) Issuer: Google Trust Services |
X25519MLKEM768 (X25519 combined with ML-KEM-768). The Key Exchange column reports the group each mail server actually negotiated — direct, observed evidence of its post-quantum readiness toward a hybrid-capable client.X25519MLKEM768 group is defined in draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem (Standards Track draft, not yet an RFC); the hybrid approach is described in draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design (IESG-approved Informational). Servers supporting only other hybrid groups also read as Classical here.04$4 Human-visible identity · L1 Brand & Trust Can this brand be convincingly faked? BIMI & VMC CAA · see Domain Security Inconclusive
Brand Security Can this brand be convincingly faked? Likely DMARC policy is not set to reject (RFC 7489 §6.3) — partial protection only
05%5 Ownership & attack surface · L1 Infrastructure Intelligence Who operates this domain, and what is exposed? Registrar / RDAP security.txt AI Surface Subdomains
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (security.txt) Is there a verified way to report security issues? No RFC 9116
Could not fetch security.txt
/.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 significant AI surface findings
llms.txt llmstxt.org
AI Crawler Governance (robots.txt) RFC 9309 IETF Draft
Content-Usage Directive IETF Draft
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.
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
Hidden Prompt Artifacts
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.
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.
DNS Server Security Not Checked
No nameservers found — Nmap NSE probes for zone transfer (AXFR), open recursion (RFC 5358), nameserver identity disclosure, and DNS cache snooping.
| Check | Result | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Zone Transfer (AXFR) | Denied | Not tested |
| Open Recursion | Disabled | Not tested |
| Nameserver Identity | Hidden | Not tested |
| Cache Snooping | Protected | Not tested |
Infrastructure Intelligence Who hosts this domain and what services power it? Direct
ASN / Network Info
No IP addresses to look up
Edge / CDN Success
Domain appears to use direct origin hosting
SaaS TXT Footprint Success 1 service
Detected 1 SaaS verification record
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.
| Service | Verification Record |
|---|---|
google-site-verification=Gauq80vz5S1HzR7NoxwgjuEAz4FTyt3jEavwrW_-QHw |
Traffic & Routing Where does this domain's traffic actually terminate?
AIPv4 Address
AAAAIPv6 Address
MXMail Servers
SRVServices
Subdomain Discovery RFC 6962 Recon LIVE What subdomains and infrastructure are exposed in certificate logs? 4 subdomains discovered
How did we find these?| Subdomain | Source | Status | Provider / CNAME | Certificates | First Seen | Issuer(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
cpanel.reisswellness.com
|
DNS | Current |
reisswellness.com
|
— | — | — |
ftp.reisswellness.com
|
DNS | Current |
reisswellness.com
|
— | — | — |
webmail.reisswellness.com
|
DNS | Current |
reisswellness.com
|
— | — | — |
www.reisswellness.com
|
DNS | Current |
wp.wpenginepowered.com
|
— | — | — |
06^6 Raw records & reproducibility · L2–L3 Evidence & Verification Can another engineer reproduce every material claim? Analysis Confidence Intelligence Currency What changed Raw record diff Integrity seal Reproduce
The following DNS record TTLs deviate from recommended values. Incorrect TTLs can cause caching issues, slow propagation, or unnecessary DNS traffic.
| Record Type | Observed TTL | Typical TTL | Severity | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NS | 6 hours (21600s) |
1 day (86400s) |
medium | NS TTL is below typical — observed 6 hours (21600s), typical value is 1 day (86400s). Short TTLs increase DNS query volume but enable faster propagation. If you are preparing for a migration or need rapid failover, this may be intentional (RFC 1035 §3.2.1). For steady-state production, consider 86400 seconds per NIST SP 800-53 SI-7 relevance guidance. Use the TTL Tuner for profile-specific recommendations. |
Big Picture Questions
- How often do you actually change this record? If it hasn’t changed in months, a short TTL is generating unnecessary DNS queries without any benefit.
- Are you preparing for a migration or IP change? Short TTLs make sense temporarily — but should be raised back to 1 hour (3600s) once the change is complete.
- Every DNS lookup adds 20–150ms of latency. With a 60s TTL, returning visitors trigger a fresh lookup every minute. With 3600s, they get cached responses for an hour — faster page loads, no extra infrastructure needed.
- Google runs A records at ~30s because they operate a global anycast network and need to steer traffic dynamically. For a typical website without that infrastructure, copying those TTLs increases query volume with zero upside.
ns1.dnsbycomodo.net
2026082201
admin.dns.com
| Timer | Value | RFC 1912 Range |
|---|---|---|
| Refresh | 10800s | 1,200–43,200s (20 min – 12 hrs) |
| Retry | 864000s | Fraction of Refresh |
| Expire | 7200s | 1,209,600–2,419,200s (14–28 days) |
| Minimum (Neg. Cache) | 7200s | 300–86,400s (5 min – 1 day) |
| Parameter | Current | Suggested | Severity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| resolver_set | 5 resolvers, 0% agreement |
Add additional resolvers or replace low-agreement ones |
high | Resolver agreement rate is 0.0%, below the 70% threshold. Low agreement indicates potential DNS propagation issues or resolver-specific caching behavior. Adding diverse resolvers improves measurement confidence. NIST SP 800-53 SI-7 |
| timeout_seconds | 5s |
8s |
low | Average scan duration is 63.5s, suggesting DNS responses are slow for this domain. Increasing timeout from 5s to 8s prevents premature resolution failures. RFC 8767 |
DNS Evidence Diff Side-by-side comparison
1 smtp.google.com.
ns1.dnsbycomodo.net.
ns2.dnsbycomodo.net.
ns1.dnsbycomodo.net. admin.dns.com. 2026082201 10800 864000 7200 7200
google-site-verification=Gauq80vz5S1HzR7NoxwgjuEAz4FTyt3jEavwrW_-QHw
v=spf1 include:google.com ~all
DNS History Timeline BETA
When was a record added, removed, or changed — and could that change be the problem?
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.
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.
2e7c4b6f11c6094037ae542e623b4b586ded696a87f759aa4eb85c98249c3354900c5729bb4a13e90f32bc1682a4310ae666de28fefa7f3e6a47878a96464863
Internet Archive — Permanent Record Wayback Machine Can this analysis be independently verified? Archived
This analysis has been automatically submitted to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, creating a tamper-evident, third-party-hosted snapshot of the DNS security posture at analysis time. This archived copy is independent of DNS Tool — it provides an independently verifiable record of the analysis at this point in time. Combined with the SHA-3-512 integrity hash, this creates a verifiable chain of evidence for domain security state.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260822220223/https://dnstool.it-help.tech/analysis/18471/view/E
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).
cat dns-intelligence-reisswellness.com.json.sha3 && echo '---' && openssl dgst -sha3-512 dns-intelligence-reisswellness.com.jsonpython3 -c "import hashlib; print(hashlib.sha3_512(open('dns-intelligence-reisswellness.com.json','rb').read()).hexdigest())"sha3sum -a 512 dns-intelligence-reisswellness.com.json.sha3 file or the checksum API at /api/analysis/18471/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 reisswellness.com. 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
dig +noall +answer reisswellness.com Adig +noall +answer reisswellness.com AAAAdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com MXdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com NSdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com TXTEmail Authentication
dig +short reisswellness.com TXT | grep -i spfdig +short _dmarc.reisswellness.com TXTdig +short default._domainkey.reisswellness.com TXTDomain Security
dig +dnssec +noall +answer reisswellness.com DNSKEYdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com DSdig +dnssec +cd reisswellness.com A @1.1.1.1Transport Security
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.smtp.google.com TLSAopenssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect smtp.google.com:25 -servername smtp.google.com 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -subject -datesdig +short _mta-sts.reisswellness.com TXTcurl -sL https://mta-sts.reisswellness.com/.well-known/mta-sts.txtdig +short _smtp._tls.reisswellness.com TXTBrand & Trust
dig +short default._bimi.reisswellness.com TXTdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com CAADNS Records
dig +noall +answer reisswellness.com HTTPSDomain Security
dig +noall +answer reisswellness.com CDSInfrastructure Intelligence
curl -sL 'https://rdap.org/domain/reisswellness.com' | python3 -m json.tool | head -50Transport Security
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect smtp.google.com:25 -servername smtp.google.com </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5Infrastructure Intelligence
curl -s 'https://crt.sh/?q=%25.reisswellness.com&output=json' | python3 -c "import json,sys; [print(e['name_value']) for e in json.load(sys.stdin)]" | sort -u | head -20curl -sL https://reisswellness.com/.well-known/security.txt | head -20AI Surface
curl -sI https://reisswellness.com/llms.txt | head -5curl -s https://reisswellness.com/robots.txt | grep -i -E 'GPTBot|ChatGPT|Claude|Anthropic|Google-Extended|CCBot|PerplexityBot'dig, openssl, and curl — standard tools available on macOS, Linux, and WSL. Results may vary slightly due to DNS propagation timing and resolver caching.
Appendix: Verification Commands
DNS Records
dig +noall +answer reisswellness.com Adig +noall +answer reisswellness.com AAAAdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com MXdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com NSdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com TXTEmail Authentication
dig +short reisswellness.com TXT | grep -i spfdig +short _dmarc.reisswellness.com TXTdig +short default._domainkey.reisswellness.com TXTDomain Security
dig +dnssec +noall +answer reisswellness.com DNSKEYdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com DSdig +dnssec +cd reisswellness.com A @1.1.1.1Transport Security
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.smtp.google.com TLSAopenssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect smtp.google.com:25 -servername smtp.google.com 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -subject -datesdig +short _mta-sts.reisswellness.com TXTcurl -sL https://mta-sts.reisswellness.com/.well-known/mta-sts.txtdig +short _smtp._tls.reisswellness.com TXTBrand & Trust
dig +short default._bimi.reisswellness.com TXTdig +noall +answer reisswellness.com CAADNS Records
dig +noall +answer reisswellness.com HTTPSDomain Security
dig +noall +answer reisswellness.com CDSInfrastructure Intelligence
curl -sL 'https://rdap.org/domain/reisswellness.com' | python3 -m json.tool | head -50Transport Security
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect smtp.google.com:25 -servername smtp.google.com </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5Infrastructure Intelligence
curl -s 'https://crt.sh/?q=%25.reisswellness.com&output=json' | python3 -c "import json,sys; [print(e['name_value']) for e in json.load(sys.stdin)]" | sort -u | head -20curl -sL https://reisswellness.com/.well-known/security.txt | head -20AI Surface
curl -sI https://reisswellness.com/llms.txt | head -5curl -s https://reisswellness.com/robots.txt | grep -i -E 'GPTBot|ChatGPT|Claude|Anthropic|Google-Extended|CCBot|PerplexityBot'