Recon Report
markphd.me
Target Assessment
Target Hardness:
Medium Risk
4 defensive layers
|
5 attack surface gaps
1 weakness
3 monitoring
Email Spoofability Can you spoof email from this domain? Uncertain incomplete configuration
> analyzing sender authorization policy...
SPF — Sender Policy Framework
No SPF record — any server can claim to send from this domain
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
— limited discovery
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
No DMARC — domain has zero email authentication enforcement
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? No No MTA-STS or DANE — mail transport encryption is opportunistic only
> probing certificate pinning via DNSSEC chain...
DANE / TLSA
No DANE — TLS is opportunistic and can be downgraded
MTA-STS
MTA-STS not enforced — STARTTLS stripping possible
TLS-RPT
No TLS-RPT — TLS failures go unnoticed by 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? Partially DMARC policy is not set to reject — partial protection only
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
0 nameservers detected
— single point of failure
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:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:academy.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:account.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:accounts.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:admin.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:alerts.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:analytics.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:api.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:app.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:appointments.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:apps.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:archive.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:assets.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:auth.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:autoconfig.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:autodiscover.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:backup.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:backup1.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:backup2.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:beta.markphd.me source:dns] |
map[cert_count:— first_seen:— is_current:true issuers:[] name:billing.markphd.me source:dns] |
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
5b4255f48dda2a7eac069aa94645b2a5e7e8c3fc8476d2fcb38733250293ebef878a7044ab3f2cf15cef3cf12110afba1b355d85a9ff861cfb0cb60ca56e3c72
RFC References
12
Tool Version
v26.20.48
Posture Hash
ea8d01031b4d9f38…