Skip to main content

Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report

telekom.de
24 Feb 2026, 14:20 UTC · 73.1s ·v26.25.65 · SHA-3-512: 8063✱✱✱✱ Verify
Recon ModeRecon Mode Snapshot Re-analyze New Domain
DNS Security & Trust Posture
Risk Level: Low Risk
4 protocols configured, 5 not configured Domain appears to be in deliberate DMARC deployment phase — quarantine fully enforced with reporting, consider upgrading to reject Why we go beyond letter grades
Intelligence Currency
Data Currency: Good 76/100
ICuAE Details
Currentness Excellent TTL Compliance Excellent Completeness Degraded Source Credibility Excellent TTL Relevance Adequate
DNS data is mostly current with minor gaps — good intelligence currency

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
TXT 577s 1 hour (3600s) medium TXT TTL is below — observed 577s, typical value is 1 hour (3600s). Consider setting to 3600 seconds per NIST SP 800-53 SI-18 relevance guidance.
MX 24s 1 hour (3600s) high MX TTL is below — observed 24s, typical value is 1 hour (3600s). Consider setting to 3600 seconds per NIST SP 800-53 SI-18 relevance guidance.
NS 3577s 1 day (86400s) high NS TTL is below — observed 3577s, typical value is 1 day (86400s). Consider setting to 86400 seconds per NIST SP 800-53 SI-18 relevance guidance.

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.
Tune TTL for telekom.de
Reference: NIST SP 800-53 SI-7 (Information Integrity) · RFC 8767 (Serve Stale) · RFC 1035 §3.2.1 (TTL semantics) Note: Some DNS providers (e.g., AWS Route 53 alias records, Cloudflare proxied records) enforce fixed TTLs that cannot be modified. If a finding targets a record you cannot edit, it reflects the observed value rather than a configuration error on your part.
Suggested Scanner Configuration Medium Confidence
Based on 8 historical scans of this domain
Parameter Current Suggested Severity Rationale
timeout_seconds 5s 8s low Average scan duration is 60.8s, 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
Protected
Brand Impersonation
Not Setup
DNS Tampering
Unsigned
Certificate Control
Open
Recommended
Upgrade DMARC policy from quarantine to reject (p=reject) for maximum spoofing protection
Configured
SPF, DMARC (quarantine, 100%), DKIM, TLS-RPT
Not Configured
MTA-STS, BIMI, DANE, DNSSEC, CAA
Priority Actions 4 total Achievable posture: Secure
Medium Enable DNSSEC

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

Medium Upgrade DMARC to Reject

Your DMARC policy is set to quarantine. Upgrade to p=reject for maximum protection — reject instructs receivers to discard spoofed mail entirely rather than quarantining it.

A reject policy provides the strongest protection against domain spoofing.
FieldValue
TypeTXT
Host_dmarc.telekom.de (update existing DMARC record)
Valuev=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@telekom.de
Low Add CAA Records

CAA records specify which Certificate Authorities may issue certificates for your domain, reducing the risk of unauthorized certificate issuance.

CAA constrains which CAs can issue certificates for this domain.
FieldValue
TypeCAA
Hosttelekom.de (root of domain — adjust CA to match your provider)
Value0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
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.telekom.de (MTA-STS policy record)
Valuev=STSv1; id=telekom.de
Registrar (RDAP) LIVE
Unknown
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? Unlikely SPF and DMARC quarantine policy enforced

SPF Record RFC 7208 §4 Verified

Does this domain declare who may send email on its behalf? Yes
Success ~all 1/10 lookups

SPF valid with industry-standard soft fail (~all), 1/10 lookups

v=spf1 include:_spfa.telekom.com ~all
RFC 7208 Conformant — This SPF record conforms to the syntax and semantics defined in RFC 7208 §4.
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)
~all is the industry standard. Google, Apple, and most providers default to soft fail. CISA (BOD 18-01) and RFC 7489 confirm that DMARC policy — not SPF alone — is the primary enforcement control. Using ~all allows DKIM to be evaluated before a DMARC decision is made. This domain uses ~all + DMARC quarantine — good protection. Moving to p=reject would achieve the strongest stance.

DMARC Policy RFC 7489 §6.3 Verified

Are spoofed emails rejected or quarantined? Quarantined, not rejected
Success p=quarantine

DMARC policy quarantine (100%) - good protection

v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;ruf=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;
Alignment: SPF relaxed DKIM relaxed
No np= tag (DMARCbis) — non-existent subdomains inherit p= policy but adding np=reject provides explicit protection against subdomain spoofing
Forensic reporting (ruf) is configured, but most major providers do not send forensic reports. 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. The DMARCbis draft (draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis) has formally removed ruf= from the specification. Consider removing this tag to simplify your record. RFC 7489 §7.3 — Forensic Reports
Advanced cryptographic posture detected. Domain appears to be in deliberate DMARC deployment phase — quarantine fully enforced with reporting, consider upgrading to reject
RFC 7489 Present — DMARC record published per RFC 7489 §6.3.
Monitoring Posture Note: Quarantine sequesters authentication failures while preserving full DMARC forensic telemetry (RFC 7489 §7). Some organizations maintain quarantine rather than reject as a deliberate monitoring strategy — failed messages are processed and reported but sequestered from the inbox. See NIST SP 800-177 Rev. 1 for enforcement tradeoffs.
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? Yes — verified
Found

Found DKIM records for 4 selector(s)

k1._domainkey
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDbNrX2cY/GUKIFx2G/1I00ftdAj713WP9AQ1xir85i89sA2guU0ta4UX1Xzm06XIU6iBP41VwmPwBGRNofhBVR+e6WHUoNyIR4Bn84LVcfZE20rmDeXQblIupNWBqLXM1Q+VieI/eZu/7k9/vOkLSaQQdml4Cv8lb3PcnluMVIhQIDAQAB;
k2._domainkey
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv2aC2KjGKLOwTweBY5A9RpjsxaBXR9r7OAU6U8/zn92ivImI75naUujWbItRI/QmL1jy5PWGqLwoUA0b90ObWaLDc+i9MtTNmGeWO009hr20fIxhGg6XBT2kjZ1DTThopSe1nAndsupmcBwlQ5Q6LJ+ZAxLcujnPIxM0ZBLmgpkv8u6RfY4eFP8OLvdAW3oSuB0DyLDigQX4Sj8wBO4YIdQH6AAmBeOsidsKAFNFUCpc3vCxtBDR12U+cBg724l3sBkMQ8evnz6idnqxq9QAVYh8k4kJ+RP+6cqTdy7LjIm8xY/bQNpQIpGUAuDo2DjLcCDun9DAI4Q/3z+Q0o9QuQIDAQAB;
k3._domainkey MailChimp
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsYGiMSn7fsUqSvfSX40x9R1OlRtbNiCY80lHRIlcKx3XDIR7257aUx+q9CSIARdfTL6KCuLGNFx5g9TgVr6png4ajcieSQGtOehBgxnkDN8aAA5TX0FmFrcefJU0JoxLOF09EKgXxhSSHCk/ekVb0PXSboHXoZ9+EI404F1qhcwXXIgHXTaUthHTut2P6BBZhIXIgvDe/w49GchR7MRJqjNb7neEBbYHbgWuBTvvHCg7Gy6m6n9krYK+ROWq3dVvXy9plAGK3ygM+HtjIiMt7arRGMOF0WgDTz7YdN9BGpt6BvXxLnjiQcgS5T9n+cIyPZgiWzDMXNlaEEdKTEKxrwIDAQAB;
mandrill._domainkey MailChimp (Mandrill)
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCrLHiExVd55zd/IQ/J/mRwSRMAocV/hMB3jXwaHH36d9NaVynQFYV8NaWi69c1veUtRzGt7yAioXqLj7Z4TeEUoOLgrKsn8YnckGs9i3B3tVFB+Ch/4mPhXWiNfNdynHWBcPcbJ8kjEQ2U8y78dHZj1YeRXXVvWob2OaKynO8/lQIDAQAB;
RFC 6376 Conformant — DKIM keys and signatures conform to RFC 6376 §3.6 (Internet Standard).
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? Yes — reports configured
Success

TLS-RPT configured - receiving TLS delivery reports

v=TLSRPTv1; rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.com;

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

No DANE/TLSA records found (checked 3 MX hosts)

DANE (RFC 7672) binds TLS certificates to DNSSEC-signed DNS records, protecting email transport against man-in-the-middle attacks and rogue CAs. It is the primary transport security standard — MTA-STS (RFC 8461) was created as the alternative for domains that cannot deploy DNSSEC. Over 1 million domains use DANE globally, including Microsoft Exchange Online, Proton Mail, and Fastmail. Best practice: deploy both for defense in depth.

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. Mail transport relies on opportunistic TLS without policy enforcement, leaving it vulnerable to downgrade attacks. Deploy DANE (RFC 7672) with DNSSEC for the strongest protection, or MTA-STS (RFC 8461) if DNSSEC is not feasible.

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 quarantine flags but does not reject spoofed mail (RFC 7489 §6.3) — no BIMI or CAA (RFC 8659) reinforcement leaves brand impersonation largely unaddressed

BIMI BIMI Spec Verified Warning

Is the brand identity verified and displayed in inboxes? No

No BIMI record found

CAA RFC 8659 §4 Verified Warning

Does this domain restrict who can issue TLS certificates? No

No CAA records found - any CA can issue certificates

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.

DNS Server Security Hardened

No DNS server misconfigurations found on dns2.telekom.de — 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 Zone transfer denied (correct configuration)
Open Recursion Disabled Recursion disabled (correct configuration)
Nameserver Identity Hidden No nameserver identity information disclosed
Cache Snooping Protected Cache snooping not possible (correct configuration)

Tested nameservers: dns2.telekom.de, pns.dtag.de, ns1.telekom.net, dns1.telekom.de

Mail Transport Security Beta Is mail transport encrypted and verified? Partially TLS reporting is configured but no transport enforcement policy is active

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

Policy Assessment Primary
  • TLS-RPT configured — domain monitors TLS delivery failures (RFC 8460)
Telemetry
TLS-RPT configured — domain receives reports about TLS delivery failures from sending mail servers (RFC 8460)
Reporting to: mailto:dmarc@telekom.com
Live Probe Supplementary
Skipped — SMTP port 25 not reachable from probe host — all MX servers rejected or timed out on port 25. Transport security assessed via DNS policy records.
Infrastructure Intelligence Who hosts this domain and what services power it? Direct

ASN / Network Success

Resolved 1 unique ASN(s) across 3 IP address(es)

ASNNameCountry
AS16509 Amazon.com, Inc. US
IPv4 Mappings:
3.67.146.210AS16509 (3.64.0.0/12)
63.176.75.230AS16509 (63.176.0.0/12)
3.75.56.200AS16509 (3.64.0.0/10)

Edge / CDN Success

Domain appears to use direct origin hosting

SaaS TXT Footprint Success 9 services

9 SaaS services detected via DNS TXT verification records

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.

ServiceVerification Record
Google Workspace google-site-verification=3aMWAc5xlQdD9Sr5FbjOVk5ZWcXHz3FfuT1ykz7ovF8
MongoDB Atlas mongodb-site-verification=SVkEFwDo0PL5wQKGajdr2PeA7Tlr9Yn0
DocuSign docusign=6c675f35-a345-4def-8efa-8cde758ccc7e
Webex webexdomainverification.IPJP=5d9af4ca-0ad4-401d-a88c-4828ffcf90b5
Atlassian atlassian-domain-verification=RYDBmArxP6DhrshwBcIZoo3ZF26BwxWI06Enb8LaC7YfF2d8cP...
Apple apple-domain-verification=RAsXcbTcwd0x4STR
Adobe adobe-idp-site-verification=22f64faf827865075c1f3f1d814848b67f1e2ebe012796f5b958...
Miro miro-verification=089da153dee3b2bdebb4e4940c914abf39a26035
Microsoft 365 MS=ms35884038

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

4 nameserver(s) configured

Nameservers: dns1.telekom.de dns2.telekom.de ns1.telekom.net pns.dtag.de
Enterprise DNS (Mixed Configuration)
2 of 4 nameservers are dedicated (telekom.de-branded), 2 use external provider(s). This pattern is common in large organizations using split-horizon DNS or maintaining redundancy across internal and external infrastructure.
Dedicated (organization-branded): dns1.telekom.de dns2.telekom.de External provider: ns1.telekom.net pns.dtag.de
Multi-Resolver Verification Recon: Discrepancy detected - Some resolvers returned different results (1 difference found)
Resolver Differences:
TXT: OpenDNS returned different results: [MS=ms35884038 ZOOM_verify_jIbBUG459R326KhFKOX8uB apple-domain-verification=RAsXcbTcwd0x4STR docusign=386bf6b9-1928-48c8-9f8a-c7b551459aa2 docusign=6c675f35-a345-4def-8efa-8cde758ccc7e google-gws-recovery-domain-verification=43219657 openai-domain-verification=dv-T5JfH1eMRERJ2s29zq4XiPTR v=spf1 include:_spfa.telekom.com ~all]
This may indicate DNS propagation in progress or geo-based DNS routing.
Traffic & Routing Where does this domain's traffic actually terminate?

AIPv4 Address

3.67.146.210
63.176.75.230
3.75.56.200
Where the domain points for web traffic

AAAAIPv6 Address

No AAAA records
IPv6 not configured

MXMail Servers

100 mailin.ng.telekom.net.
200 mailin42.telekom.de.
200 mailin22.telekom.de.
Priority + mail server for email delivery

SRVServices

_sip._tls: 0 0 443 sip.telekom.de.
_sipfederationtls._tcp: 0 0 5061 sip.telekom.de.
SIP, XMPP, or other service endpoints
Web: Reachable (3 IPv4, 0 IPv6) Mail: 3 servers Services: 2 endpoints
Subdomain Discovery RFC 6962 Recon LIVE What subdomains and infrastructure are exposed in certificate logs? 43 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). The CT log server returned an error.
CT logs unavailable 43 current 0 expired 7 CNAMEs Source: Certificate Transparency + DNS Intelligence
Subdomains discovered via CT logs (RFC 6962), DNS probing of common service names, and CNAME chain traversal.
Subdomain Source Status Provider / CNAME Certificates First Seen Issuer(s)
api.telekom.de DNS Current prod.spacegate.telekom.de
app.telekom.de DNS Current
apps.telekom.de DNS Current
autodiscover.telekom.de DNS Current o365autodis.telekom.de
cert.telekom.de DNS Current
cloud.telekom.de DNS Current
community.telekom.de DNS Current
compliance.telekom.de DNS Current
developer.telekom.de DNS Current developer.spacegate.telekom.de
dns.telekom.de DNS Current
dns1.telekom.de DNS Current
dns2.telekom.de DNS Current
download.telekom.de DNS Current
email.telekom.de DNS Current
event.telekom.de DNS Current
ext.telekom.de DNS Current
forum.telekom.de DNS Current
gw1.telekom.de DNS Current
gw2.telekom.de DNS Current
hosting.telekom.de DNS Current
hr.telekom.de DNS Current
it.telekom.de DNS Current
jira.telekom.de DNS Current
learning.telekom.de DNS Current
legal.telekom.de DNS Current
link.telekom.de DNS Current
mail.telekom.de DNS Current
mail2.telekom.de DNS Current
mdm.telekom.de DNS Current
ocsp.telekom.de DNS Current ocsp.telesec.de
owa.telekom.de DNS Current
privacy.telekom.de DNS Current
public.telekom.de DNS Current
rss.telekom.de DNS Current
services.telekom.de DNS Current
shop.telekom.de DNS Current shop.telekom.de.cname.i22.de
sip.telekom.de DNS Current
stg.telekom.de DNS Current eg-stg-ext-56470332e7349b15.elb.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com
web.telekom.de DNS Current
webex.telekom.de DNS Current
wiki.telekom.de DNS Current
www.telekom.de DNS Current
www2.telekom.de DNS Current d8ycftj0e2pjg.cloudfront.net
Δ Changes Detected: TXT Resolver ≠ Authoritative (TTL / CDN rotation / recent change)
Risk: Low - typically resolves within TTL
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 3 / 3 records
3.67.146.210
3.67.146.210
63.176.75.230
3.75.56.200
3.75.56.200
63.176.75.230
AAAA 0 / 0 records
No records
No records
CAA RFC 8659 §4 0 / 0 records
No records
No records
DMARC _dmarc.telekom.de RFC 7489 §6.3 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;ruf=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;
v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;ruf=mailto:dmarc@telekom.de;
MX RFC 5321 Synchronized 3 / 3 records
100 mailin.ng.telekom.net.
100 mailin.ng.telekom.net.
200 mailin42.telekom.de.
200 mailin42.telekom.de.
200 mailin22.telekom.de.
200 mailin22.telekom.de.
NS RFC 1035 Synchronized 4 / 4 records
pns.dtag.de.
dns2.telekom.de.
ns1.telekom.net.
ns1.telekom.net.
dns1.telekom.de.
pns.dtag.de.
dns2.telekom.de.
dns1.telekom.de.
SOA RFC 1035 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
dns1.telekom.de. dnsadmin.t-systems.com. 2019037887 10800 1800 604800 600
dns1.telekom.de. dnsadmin.t-systems.com. 2019037887 10800 1800 604800 600
TLS-RPT _smtp._tls.telekom.de RFC 8460 §3 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
v=TLSRPTv1; rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.com;
v=TLSRPTv1; rua=mailto:dmarc@telekom.com;
TXT RFC 7208 §4 Propagating 27 / 5 records
figma-domain-verification=b9c1825057675ccb105df5798a5d27c8bd20a6c5d604e47d22e13bd8f05429fc-1742808147
google-site-verification=d1yVyM6bmOcSDJXc5ot_SrOyXXKqgEu8Ep6SSCHgJb4
5767dbc9e0bea7f45ca86eb79002a6da39a2b5ba6e6e6e7bfa69a4583acc2a9
atlassian-domain-verification=uGLUdpD2IVY19OJG5SQbVpV497SMTPJPSKYbkZRnWtMwczrdbHLwFVATrVgnlCOI
google-site-verification=3aMWAc5xlQdD9Sr5FbjOVk5ZWcXHz3FfuT1ykz7ovF8
WswlzVPlM/dCeERhN7//wzB6tFfJZ1XmYfNOWOrtejyjbMUHvprNl2q/aSJovjIIdeCUnaiIU+04M7Hy+OfbBw==
ZOOM_verify_jIbBUG459R326KhFKOX8uB
docusign=386bf6b9-1928-48c8-9f8a-c7b551459aa2
mongodb-site-verification=SVkEFwDo0PL5wQKGajdr2PeA7Tlr9Yn0
google-site-verification:syCIRr6VyoifbE6Wpg-dmA-LMXJwh5QE-Hm4eEDU8as
docusign=6c675f35-a345-4def-8efa-8cde758ccc7e
openai-domain-verification=dv-T5JfH1eMRERJ2s29zq4XiPTR
webexdomainverification.IPJP=5d9af4ca-0ad4-401d-a88c-4828ffcf90b5
atlassian-domain-verification=RYDBmArxP6DhrshwBcIZoo3ZF26BwxWI06Enb8LaC7YfF2d8cPno6tILbMv8SCVS
google-site-verification=DKA9MWpvwcF2sZXgChNZHK5K8s9GFaUJnomtQQoa83o
apple-domain-verification=RAsXcbTcwd0x4STR
jQ5A8b2Q7E4HyW43qxNGnwFURfay0p6vHBujf8d4fdIYmySsRB2prgHkNJFXQwD+wazvOVaY2l8FpABrA3E7qQ==
adobe-idp-site-verification=22f64faf827865075c1f3f1d814848b67f1e2ebe012796f5b958a206affdcbeb
docusign=386bf6b9-1928-48c8-9f8a-c7b551459aa2
webexdomainverification.BSJE=bff842e9-03f4-44ca-b219-082c41a93969
677d99f0f35f8908c36db37733460d077cefca982e1356c01f8dc9ab5fa3f3f
Dynatrace-site-verification=96bc3bd6-5d9d-453d-be69-504b23c4e472__e2jn5ah8dr7bql5njdq6ttdq0
atlassian-domain-verification=uGLUdpD2IVY19OJG5SQbVpV497SMTPJPSKYbkZRnWtMwczrdbHLwFVATrVgnlCOI
google-site-verification=d1yVyM6bmOcSDJXc5ot_SrOyXXKqgEu8Ep6SSCHgJb4
WswlzVPlM/dCeERhN7//wzB6tFfJZ1XmYfNOWOrtejyjbMUHvprNl2q/aSJovjIIdeCUnaiIU+04M7Hy+OfbBw==
miro-verification=089da153dee3b2bdebb4e4940c914abf39a26035
google-gws-recovery-domain-verification=43219657
MS=ms35884038
v=spf1 include:_spfa.telekom.com ~all
6f13fba4457ecc5c8e4a13ba55f5bcfd543188febf1506a8d1dc024621b3588
google-site-verification:syCIRr6VyoifbE6Wpg-dmA-LMXJwh5QE-Hm4eEDU8as
infoblox-domain-mastery=f82c526edce83ae0a49e379a8b7fc171e6910bf251ad85620177ac13f7759606f3
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.

8063fab7172821c861eb1595d97c4f55d0c2b38ae15ddc438114444be2b6bc15410f4b4be1577bdee94845b5bb8a791b1b2b67dc27dbf6e0db68a3e5afaecb0a
Evaluations reference 12 RFCs. Methods are reproducible using the verification commands provided. Results reflect DNS state at 24 Feb 2026, 14:20 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-telekom.de.json.sha3 && echo '---' && openssl dgst -sha3-512 dns-intelligence-telekom.de.json
Python 3 (cross-platform)
python3 -c "import hashlib; print(hashlib.sha3_512(open('dns-intelligence-telekom.de.json','rb').read()).hexdigest())"
sha3sum (coreutils 9+)
sha3sum -a 512 dns-intelligence-telekom.de.json
Compare the output against the .sha3 file or the checksum API at /api/analysis/4064/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 telekom.de. 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 telekom.de A
Query AAAA records (IPv6) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer telekom.de AAAA
Query MX records (mail servers) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer telekom.de MX
Query NS records (nameservers) RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer telekom.de NS
Query TXT records RFC 1035
dig +noall +answer telekom.de TXT

Email Authentication

Check SPF record RFC 7208
dig +short telekom.de TXT | grep -i spf
Check DMARC policy RFC 7489
dig +short _dmarc.telekom.de TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'k1' RFC 6376
dig +short k1._domainkey.telekom.de TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'k2' RFC 6376
dig +short k2._domainkey.telekom.de TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'k3' RFC 6376
dig +short k3._domainkey.telekom.de TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'mandrill' RFC 6376
dig +short mandrill._domainkey.telekom.de TXT

Domain Security

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

Transport Security

Check TLSA record for mailin.ng.telekom.net RFC 7672
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.mailin.ng.telekom.net TLSA
Check TLSA record for mailin42.telekom.de RFC 7672
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.mailin42.telekom.de TLSA
Check TLSA record for mailin22.telekom.de RFC 7672
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.mailin22.telekom.de TLSA
Verify TLS certificate on primary MX (mailin.ng.telekom.net) RFC 6698
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect mailin.ng.telekom.net:25 -servername mailin.ng.telekom.net 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -subject -dates
Check MTA-STS DNS record RFC 8461
dig +short _mta-sts.telekom.de TXT
Fetch MTA-STS policy file RFC 8461
curl -sL https://mta-sts.telekom.de/.well-known/mta-sts.txt
Check TLS-RPT record RFC 8460
dig +short _smtp._tls.telekom.de TXT

Brand & Trust

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

DNS Records

Check HTTPS/SVCB records RFC 9460
dig +noall +answer telekom.de HTTPS

Domain Security

Check CDS/CDNSKEY automation records RFC 7344
dig +noall +answer telekom.de CDS

Infrastructure Intelligence

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

Transport Security

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

Infrastructure Intelligence

Search Certificate Transparency logs RFC 6962
curl -s 'https://crt.sh/?q=%25.telekom.de&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://telekom.de/.well-known/security.txt | head -20

AI Surface

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

Infrastructure Intelligence

ASN lookup for 3.67.146.210 (Team Cymru)
dig +short 210.146.67.3.origin.asn.cymru.com TXT
ASN lookup for 63.176.75.230 (Team Cymru)
dig +short 230.75.176.63.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 5102 runs
DKIM
Verified 4921 runs
DMARC
Verified 5087 runs
DANE/TLSA
Verified 4903 runs
DNSSEC
Verified 5085 runs
BIMI
Verified 4918 runs
MTA-STS
Verified 4920 runs
TLS-RPT
Verified 4925 runs
CAA
Verified 4917 runs
Maturity: Development Verified Consistent Gold Gold Master
Running Multi-Source Intelligence Audit

telekom.de

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.