Recon Report
blauwsurvey.com
Target Assessment
Target Hardness:
Hardened
5 defensive layers
|
4 attack surface gaps
1 weakness
2 monitoring
Email Spoofability Can you spoof email from this domain? Unlikely SPF and DMARC quarantine 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
— partial coverage
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=quarantine — authentication failures are sequestered, not rejected. Forensic telemetry is preserved (RFC 7489 §7). Some organizations maintain this posture as a deliberate monitoring strategy. See NIST SP 800-177
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? Likely DMARC quarantine flags but does not reject spoofed mail (RFC 7489 §6.3), and no BIMI brand verification — lookalike domains display identically in inboxes; CAA restricts certificate issuance (RFC 8659 §4) but visual brand faking remains open
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? No DNSSEC signed and validated, cryptographic chain of trust 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
ns1.argewebhosting.eu
ns2.argewebhosting.com
ns3.argewebhosting.nl
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:2 cname_target:horizons.confirmit.eu first_seen:2026-01-08T23:53:31 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:anwb.blauwsurvey.com source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 cname_target:autodiscover.outlook.com first_seen:2026-01-12 is_current:true issuers:[GoDaddy.com, Inc.] name:autodiscover.blauwsurvey.com services:[map[http_title:Did not follow redirect to https://outlook.office365.com/mail/?realm=blauwsurvey.com&vd=autodiscover port:80 product:Microsoft IIS httpd protocol:tcp service:http version:10.0]] source:dns] |
map[cert_count:2 cname_target:bl2.blink.domains first_seen:2026-01-15T13:11:43 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:dpc.blauwsurvey.com source:ct] |
map[cert_count:2 cname_target:horizons.confirmit.eu first_seen:2026-01-08T23:54:16 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:feedback.blauwsurvey.com services:[map[http_title:The page could not be displayed port:80 product:Microsoft Azure Application Gateway protocol:tcp service:http version:v2] map[cert_sans_count:1 http_title:400 The plain HTTP request was sent to HTTPS port port:443 product:Microsoft Azure Application Gateway protocol:tcp service:http version:v2]] source:ct] |
map[cert_count:4 cname_target:bl2.blink.domains first_seen:2026-01-30T12:54:48 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:huurcommissie.blauwsurvey.com source:ct] |
map[cert_count:2 cname_target:bl2.blink.domains first_seen:2026-01-02T12:49:39 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:minez.blauwsurvey.com services:[map[http_title:Did not follow redirect to https://minez.blauwsurvey.com/ port:80 product:nginx protocol:tcp service:http] map[cert_sans_count:1 http_title:403 Forbidden port:443 product:nginx protocol:tcp service:http]] source:ct] |
map[cert_count:1 first_seen:2026-01-12 is_current:true issuers:[GoDaddy.com, Inc.] name:mx1.blauwsurvey.com source:dns] |
map[cert_count:1 cname_target:bl2.blink.domains first_seen:2026-01-12 is_current:true issuers:[GoDaddy.com, Inc.] name:ns.blauwsurvey.com source:dns] |
map[cert_count:2 cname_target:horizons.confirmit.eu first_seen:2026-01-08T23:53:58 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:sprint.blauwsurvey.com source:ct] |
map[cert_count:2 first_seen:2026-01-08T23:53:50 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:www.blauwsurvey.com services:[map[http_title:Did not follow redirect to https://www.blauwsurvey.com/ port:80 product:Microsoft Azure Application Gateway protocol:tcp service:http version:v2] map[cert_sans_count:1 http_title:400 The plain HTTP request was sent to HTTPS port port:443 product:Microsoft Azure Application Gateway protocol:tcp service:http version:v2]] source:ct] |
map[cert_count:4 cname_target:bl2.blink.domains first_seen:2026-01-30T12:36:29 is_current:true issuers:[Let's Encrypt] name:www.huurcommissie.blauwsurvey.com source:ct] |
SaaS Services (TXT Record Discovery)
2 SaaS services detected via DNS TXT verification records
Google Workspace
Microsoft 365
Secret Exposure
No exposed secrets detected in common paths
Intelligence Metadata Can you verify this independently?
SHA-3-512 Integrity Hash
e36fb317d3510b70e0e316836a5eb625331bb4df1fa3af1ae5b1b175dd8f7988896be7f69254ed695fd73f292042a1e8b3ee8b67289f9f43ccadd1e7de2037e2
RFC References
12
Tool Version
v26.26.30
Posture Hash
fae632fb89c478c9…