Recon Report
anva.ch
Target Assessment
Target Hardness:
Hardened
6 defensive layers
|
3 attack surface gaps
ANALYSIS CONFIDENCE
MODERATE
68/100
ACC:57%
CUR:81
MAT:gold
Email Spoofability Can you spoof email from this domain? No SPF and DMARC reject policy enforced
> analyzing sender authorization policy...
SPF — Sender Policy Framework
SPF is configured — sender authorization restricts spoofing
RFC 7208 — Sender Policy Framework
SPF allows domain owners to specify which mail servers are authorized to send email on behalf of their domain. Without SPF, any server can forge the envelope sender.
> enumerating cryptographic selectors...
DKIM — DomainKeys Identified Mail
DKIM selectors reveal mail infrastructure
— signatures found
RFC 6376 — DomainKeys Identified Mail
DKIM provides cryptographic authentication of email messages. Selector names often reveal email providers (e.g., google, selector1 = Microsoft 365).
> evaluating enforcement policy...
DMARC — Domain-based Message Authentication
DMARC p=reject — hard enforcement. Spoofing will be rejected.
RFC 7489 — DMARC
DMARC ties SPF and DKIM together with a policy that tells receiving servers what to do with unauthenticated mail. p=none is monitoring only — attackers love it.
Transport Security Can you intercept email in transit? Yes MTA-STS enforces TLS for all inbound mail delivery
> probing certificate pinning via DNSSEC chain...
DANE / TLSA
No DANE — TLS is opportunistic and can be downgraded
MTA-STS
MTA-STS enforce mode — senders required to use TLS
TLS-RPT
TLS-RPT configured — TLS failures are reported to the domain owner
RFC 8460 — SMTP TLS Reporting
TLS-RPT enables reporting of TLS negotiation failures. Without it, STARTTLS downgrade attacks leave no trace.
Brand & Certificate Security Can you fake this brand's identity? Possible DMARC reject policy blocks email spoofing (RFC 7489 §6.3) and CAA restricts certificate issuance (RFC 8659 §4), but no BIMI brand verification — lookalike domains display identically in inboxes without visual proof of authenticity
BIMI
No BIMI — no verified brand logo in email clients. Visual impersonation is easy.
CAA — Certificate Authority Authorization
CAA restricts certificate issuance to authorized CAs. Attacker must compromise an approved CA or exploit issuance delay windows.
0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
RFC 8659 — CAA
CAA records specify which Certificate Authorities are authorized to issue certificates. Without CAA, an attacker could obtain a valid cert from any CA.
DNS Infrastructure Can you poison the DNS? Possible DNSSEC is not deployed, DNS responses are not cryptographically verified
> validating cryptographic chain of trust...
DNSSEC
No DNSSEC — DNS responses can be spoofed or poisoned
RFC 4033–4035 — DNSSEC
DNSSEC adds cryptographic signatures to DNS responses, preventing cache poisoning and response forgery. Without DNSSEC, an attacker can forge DNS answers.
NS Delegation
3 nameservers detected
ns.second-ns.com
ns1.your-server.de
ns3.second-ns.de
Attack Surface Discovery What can you find from the outside?
Subdomain Discovery (Multi-Source)
0 subdomains discovered via CT logs + DNS probing + Nmap SAN extraction
| Subdomain |
|---|
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:21:07Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:13ft.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:08:15Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:ai.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:22:44Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:atuin.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:24:12Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:auth.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:— cname_target:mail.anva.ch first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:autoconfig.anva.ch source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— cname_target:mail.anva.ch first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:autodiscover.anva.ch source:dns] |
map[cert_count:3 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:31:36Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:book.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:39:09Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:br.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:40:28Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:cc.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-07-24T15:44:20Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:chill.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:conference.xmpp.anva.ch source:external_tools] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:41:29Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:cyberchef.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:42:45Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:feedback.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:firewall.anva.ch source:dns] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:44:02Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:home.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:45:34Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:immich.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:l.anva.ch source:external_tools] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:ldap.anva.ch source:dns] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:47:24Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:mail.anva.ch source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-06-30T18:48:27Z is_current:true issuers:[] name:media.anva.ch source:ct] |
SaaS Services (TXT Record Discovery)
No SaaS verification records found
Secret Exposure
No exposed secrets detected in common paths
Intelligence Metadata Can you verify this independently?
SHA-3-512 Integrity Hash
56be12d9f5ce548d2a0271617fcc05ba989f8debd317463343f92926e32487376f98e02b11ab258b16ba4796a05d973af9295d940d6f1be02288834b4d09475d
RFC References
12
Tool Version
v26.51.0-135-g7ada422b6
Posture Hash
ffd7da08d1ca0d7e…