Skip to main content
DNS Tool
Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report
Generated 6 Mar 2026, 15:14 UTC
Duration 21.7s
Version v26.34.53
Integrity ed51fa0c409063a36351b362c024ef60b4f71c7af6931371b65279c193dd0253bc2cd44df6ae34374feda60c1599019c0db600cb0811582a51b86e408bcc1a94
Subject Domain
sovanta.com

Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report

sovanta.com
6 Mar 2026, 15:14 UTC · 21.7s ·v26.34.53 · SHA-3-512: ed51✱✱✱✱ Verify
Executive Methodology
Recon Mode Snapshot Re-analyze New Domain
Footprint Microsoft 365 3 SaaS Services
DNS Security & Trust Posture
Risk Level: Low Risk
3 protocols configured, 5 not configured, 1 unavailable on provider Domain appears to be in deliberate DMARC deployment phase — quarantine fully enforced with reporting, consider upgrading to reject Why we go beyond letter grades
1 recommendation
Analysis Confidence (ICD 203)
MODERATE 73/100
Resolver agreement is inconsistent for some protocols, limiting confidence. Data currency and system maturity are adequate.
Accuracy 65% Currency 81/100 Maturity verified
Limiting factor: Resolver agreement is low for this scan — some protocols returned inconsistent results across resolvers
Intelligence Currency
Data Currency: Good 81/100
ICuAE Details
Currentness Excellent TTL Compliance Excellent Completeness Degraded Source Credibility Excellent TTL Relevance Good
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
NS 3570s 1 day (86400s) high NS TTL is below typical — observed 3570s, 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-18 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.
Tune TTL for sovanta.com
Reference: NIST SP 800-53 SI-7 (Information Integrity) · RFC 8767 (Serve Stale) · RFC 1035 §3.2.1 (TTL semantics) DNS provider detected: GoDaddy — provider-specific RFC compliance notes are shown inline above where applicable.
Primary NS ns43.domaincontrol.com
Serial 2026022502
Admin dns.jomax.net
Provider GoDaddy
Timer Value RFC 1912 Range
Refresh28800s1,200–43,200s (20 min – 12 hrs)
Retry7200sFraction of Refresh
Expire604800s1,209,600–2,419,200s (14–28 days)
Minimum (Neg. Cache)600s300–86,400s (5 min – 1 day)
Expire: SOA Expire is 7 days (604800s). RFC 1912 §2.2 recommends 1,209,600–2,419,200 seconds (14–28 days). If the primary nameserver becomes unreachable, secondary nameservers will stop serving this zone after only 7 days (604800s).
RFC 1912 §2.2

Independent RFC compliance assessment for GoDaddy. Each finding cites the specific RFC section and reports what the engineering community consensus is. We report honestly — if a provider deviates from standards, we explain what they did differently and what the RFCs actually say.

Minimum TTL enforced at 600s RFC 1035 §3.2.1

GoDaddy enforces a minimum TTL of 600 seconds (10 minutes). RFC 1035 defines TTL as a value between 0 and 2^31−1 seconds, with no mandated minimum. The 600-second floor prevents administrators from setting shorter TTLs that may be needed for ACME challenges or rapid failover scenarios.

Imposes restriction not required by RFCs
This assessment is based on RFC specifications, provider documentation, and documented incidents from DNS engineering communities. DNS Tool does not have a commercial relationship with any provider listed.
Suggested Scanner Configuration High Confidence
Based on 20 historical scans of this domain
Parameter Current Suggested Severity Rationale
timeout_seconds 5s 8s low Average scan duration is 33.1s, 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 (hard fail), DMARC (quarantine, 100%), DKIM
Not Configured
MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI, DNSSEC, CAA
Unavailable on Provider
DANE
Priority Actions 5 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.

RFC 4035
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.
TypeTXT
Host_dmarc.sovanta.com (update existing DMARC record)
Valuev=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@sovanta.com
RFC 7489 §6.3
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.
TypeCAA
Hostsovanta.com (root of domain — adjust CA to match your provider)
Value0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
RFC 8659
Low Add TLS-RPT Reporting

TLS-RPT (TLS Reporting) sends you reports about TLS connection failures when other servers try to deliver mail to your domain.

TLS-RPT sends you reports about TLS connection failures to your mail servers.
TypeTXT
Host_smtp._tls.sovanta.com (SMTP TLS reporting record)
Valuev=TLSRPTv1; rua=mailto:tls-reports@sovanta.com
RFC 8460
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.
TypeTXT
Host_mta-sts.sovanta.com (MTA-STS policy record)
Valuev=STSv1; id=sovanta.com
RFC 8461
Registrar (RDAP) OBSERVED LIVE
IONOS SE
Where domain was purchased
Email Service Provider INFERRED
Microsoft 365
Moderately Protected
Web Hosting
Unknown
Where website is hosted
DNS Hosting OBSERVED
GoDaddy
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 4/10 lookups

SPF valid with strict enforcement (-all), 4/10 lookups

v=spf1 include:_spf.cmail.ondemand.com include:amazonses.com include:spf.academymaker.de include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all
RFC 7489: -all may cause rejection before DMARC evaluation, preventing DKIM from being checked
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)
SPF hard fail (-all): compliance-strong, but can short-circuit DMARC. RFC 7489 notes that -all can cause some receivers to reject mail during the SMTP transaction — before DKIM is checked and before DMARC can evaluate the result. A message that would pass DMARC via DKIM alignment may be rejected prematurely. For most domains, ~all + DMARC p=reject is the strongest compatible posture — it allows every authentication method (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) to be fully evaluated before a decision is made.
DMARC enforcement is partial (quarantine). -all may preempt DKIM/DMARC evaluation at some receivers. Consider p=reject for full enforcement; ~all is more DMARC-compatible.

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:admin@sovanta.com; ruf=mailto:admin@sovanta.com; fo=1
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 2048-bit

Found DKIM for 1 selector(s) with strong keys (2048-bit)

selector1._domainkey Microsoft 365 2048-bit Adequate
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDMh12zYoUKXpWFiJS8J16R4u3B9a1majevglZ+XjbDOneegTxA0S8fIRZFOUTQosgmjJF3s6Fg9iloFDASNCG8te4XTkVEafdoLmuIeHHMJeJ6y46jtnm0yAxkEPc67EvCLw3eBwtzLmCAyMpI2pD4/HtutFFL/WyjYgeBJjEfLQIDAQAB; n=1024,1453542831,1469267631
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? No reporting
Warning

No TLS-RPT record found

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

DANE not available — Microsoft 365 does not support inbound DANE/TLSA on its MX infrastructure

DANE not deployable on Microsoft 365

Microsoft 365 does not support DANE for inbound mail. Microsoft uses its own certificate pinning mechanism.

Recommended alternative: MTA-STS

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. Since Microsoft 365 does not support inbound DANE, deploy MTA-STS (RFC 8461) to enforce TLS and protect against downgrade attacks.

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 ns43.domaincontrol.com — 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: ns43.domaincontrol.com, ns44.domaincontrol.com

Delegation Consistency 1 Issue

Delegation consistency: 1 issue(s) found — Parent/child NS delegation alignment: DS↔DNSKEY, glue records, TTL drift, SOA serial sync.

Findings:
  • Could not retrieve NS TTL from parent zone

DS ↔ DNSKEY Alignment Aligned

Glue Record Completeness Complete

NameserverIn-BailiwickIPv4 GlueIPv6 GlueStatus
ns43.domaincontrol.com No N/A N/A OK
ns44.domaincontrol.com No N/A N/A OK

NS TTL Comparison Drift

Child TTL: 3600s Drift: 0s

SOA Serial Consistency Consistent

ns43.domaincontrol.com: 2.026022502e+09
ns44.domaincontrol.com: 2.026022502e+09
Nameserver Fleet Matrix Healthy

Analyzed 2 nameserver(s) for sovanta.com — Per-nameserver reachability, ASN diversity, SOA serial sync, and lame delegation checks.

Nameserver IPv4 IPv6 ASN / Operator UDP TCP AA SOA Serial
ns44.domaincontrol.com 173.201.69.22 2603:5:2252::16 AS44273 2026022502
ns43.domaincontrol.com 97.74.101.22 2603:5:2152::16 AS44273 2026022502
Unique ASNs
1
Unique Operators
0
Unique /24 Prefixes
2
Diversity Score
Fair

1 ASN(s), 2 /24 prefix(es) — consider adding diversity

Mail Transport Security Beta Is mail transport encrypted and verified? No No MTA-STS or DANE — mail transport encryption is opportunistic only

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

Policy Assessment Primary
  • Microsoft 365 enforces TLS 1.2+ with DANE (GA Oct 2024) and valid certificates
Telemetry
TLS-RPT not configured — domain has no visibility into TLS delivery failures from real senders
Live Probe Supplementary
Skipped — Remote probe failed (connection failed — probe may be offline) and local port 25 is blocked. Transport security is assessed via DNS policy records per NIST SP 800-177 Rev. 1.
Infrastructure Intelligence Who hosts this domain and what services power it? Direct

ASN / Network Success

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

ASNNameCountry
AS34788 DE
IPv4 Mappings:
85.13.138.84 → AS34788 (85.13.138.0/24)

Edge / CDN Success

Domain appears to use direct origin hosting

SaaS TXT Footprint Success 3 services

3 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
Atlassian atlassian-domain-verification=LM3I4PPYvm+FLm7tdnResn/P1NpN7pO9niZE6mZ8/RN8szGhIY...
Google Workspace google-site-verification=VQhy2-aqPND7aNJ6JwXLK9boMXGWkbDhb8ESYQfr-kc
Apple apple-domain-verification=NQiNfxhG650h1NNX
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

Enterprise DNS Context: DNSSEC is the only standardized, DNS-verifiable mechanism that cryptographically authenticates responses between authoritative servers and resolvers (RFC 4033 §2, RFC 4035). Without it, DNS responses are technically vulnerable to in-transit tampering. Enterprise operators may employ compensating controls (anycast, DDoS mitigation, private peering, TSIG) — however, these do not provide DNS-layer data authentication to third-party resolvers and are not verifiable via DNS alone.
Visibility: DNS-only — network-layer compensating controls cannot be observed or verified through DNS queries. This assessment reflects what is provable from the DNS evidence available.

NS Delegation Verified

2 nameserver(s) configured

Nameservers: ns43.domaincontrol.com ns44.domaincontrol.com
Managed DNS
All 2 nameservers hosted by GoDaddy. Managed DNS provides reliable resolution with provider-maintained infrastructure.
DNS provider(s): GoDaddy
Multi-Resolver Verification Recon: Discrepancy detected - Some resolvers returned different results (1 difference found)
Resolver Differences:
TXT: OpenDNS returned different results: [apple-domain-verification=NQiNfxhG650h1NNX atlassian-domain-verification=LM3I4PPYvm+FLm7tdnResn/P1NpN7pO9niZE6mZ8/RN8szGhIYO5KxDIKUOYdOUj cursor-domain-verification-msfjcw=uUobYDkpQFbcxRV1YCTWxtEVF google-site-verification=VQhy2-aqPND7aNJ6JwXLK9boMXGWkbDhb8ESYQfr-kc jamf-site-verification=bhp8IEu4tU3mHVEJycyq6g]
This may indicate DNS propagation in progress or geo-based DNS routing.
Traffic & Routing Where does this domain's traffic actually terminate?

AIPv4 Address

85.13.138.84
Where the domain points for web traffic

AAAAIPv6 Address

No AAAA records
IPv6 not configured

MXMail Servers

0 sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com.
Priority + mail server for email delivery
Microsoft 365

SRVServices

_sipfederationtls._tcp: 100 1 5061 sipfed.online.lync.com.
_sip._tls: 100 1 443 sipdir.online.lync.com.
SIP, XMPP, or other service endpoints
Web: Reachable (1 IPv4, 0 IPv6) Mail: 1 server Services: 2 endpoints
Subdomain Discovery RFC 6962 Recon LIVE What subdomains and infrastructure are exposed in certificate logs? 35 subdomains discovered
How did we find these?
CT logs unavailable 35 current 0 expired 9 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)
ad.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 1 2025-05-05T13:10:01 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
autodiscover.sovanta.com DNS Current autodiscover.outlook.com 1 2025-09-02 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
blog.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 2 2026-02-01T20:08:31 Let's Encrypt
career.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-05T19:45:24 Let's Encrypt
confluence.sovanta.com DNS Current — 1 2025-09-02 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
design.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-05T02:21:56 Let's Encrypt
dl.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-03-04T15:39:15 Let's Encrypt
docs.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-06T02:23:01 Let's Encrypt
giraffe.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-03-03T15:34:47 Let's Encrypt
hr.sovanta.com DNS Current — 1 2025-09-02 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
hs-tag.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-07T02:26:18 Let's Encrypt
innovation-factory-aldi.sovanta.com CT Log Current api.cf.eu10-004.hana.ondemand.com 4 2026-01-22T12:59:25 Let's Encrypt
innovation-factory-test.sovanta.com CT Log Current api.cf.eu10-004.hana.ondemand.com 4 2025-06-05T14:18:22 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
innovation-factory.sovanta.com CT Log Current api.cf.eu10-004.hana.ondemand.com 4 2025-11-24T10:11:13 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
jira.sovanta.com DNS Current — 1 2025-09-02 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
lp.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-07T19:44:17 Let's Encrypt
media.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-07T19:44:30 Let's Encrypt
navigator.innovation-factory.sovanta.com CT Log Current api.cf.eu10-004.hana.ondemand.com 2 2025-11-24T10:10:26 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
newsletter.sovanta.com CT Log Current 4699831.group31.sites.hubspot.net 6 2026-02-16T23:31:33 Google Trust Services
o.sovanta.com CT Log Current date.wcheck.org 4 2026-02-09T16:46:05 Let's Encrypt
products.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 2 2026-01-19T20:03:37 Let's Encrypt
projects.innovation-factory.sovanta.com CT Log Current api.cf.eu10-004.hana.ondemand.com 2 2025-11-24T10:09:16 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
srv-dc01.ad.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 1 2025-05-05T13:10:01 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
srv-dc02.ad.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 1 2025-05-05T13:10:01 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
support.sovanta.com DNS Current — 1 2025-09-02 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
ux-score-dev.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-01-22T12:59:26 Let's Encrypt
ux-score-playground.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-01-22T12:59:29 Let's Encrypt
ux-score.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 2 2025-06-06T12:12:32 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
uxday.sovanta.com CT Log Current sites.figma.net 8 2026-02-25T13:34:58 Let's Encrypt
video.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-08T02:25:41 Let's Encrypt
vpn.sovanta.com DNS Current — 1 2025-09-02 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
www.ad.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 1 2025-05-05T13:10:01 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
www.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 4 2026-02-12T04:26:12 Let's Encrypt
www.srv-dc01.ad.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 1 2025-05-05T13:10:01 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
www.srv-dc02.ad.sovanta.com CT Log Current — 1 2025-05-05T13:10:01 Starfield Technologies, Inc.
Export Recon (CSV)
Δ No Propagation Issues: All DNS records are synchronized between resolver and authoritative nameserver.
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 1 / 1 records
85.13.138.84
85.13.138.84
AAAA 0 / 0 records
No records
No records
CAA RFC 8659 §4 0 / 0 records
No records
No records
DMARC _dmarc.sovanta.com RFC 7489 §6.3 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:admin@sovanta.com; ruf=mailto:admin@sovanta.com; fo=1
v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:admin@sovanta.com; ruf=mailto:admin@sovanta.com; fo=1
MX RFC 5321 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
0 sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com.
0 sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com.
NS RFC 1035 Synchronized 2 / 2 records
ns44.domaincontrol.com.
ns43.domaincontrol.com.
ns43.domaincontrol.com.
ns44.domaincontrol.com.
SOA RFC 1035 Synchronized 1 / 1 records
ns43.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2026022502 28800 7200 604800 600
ns43.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2026022502 28800 7200 604800 600
TXT RFC 7208 §4 Synchronized 6 / 6 records
atlassian-domain-verification=LM3I4PPYvm+FLm7tdnResn/P1NpN7pO9niZE6mZ8/RN8szGhIYO5KxDIKUOYdOUj
google-site-verification=VQhy2-aqPND7aNJ6JwXLK9boMXGWkbDhb8ESYQfr-kc
google-site-verification=VQhy2-aqPND7aNJ6JwXLK9boMXGWkbDhb8ESYQfr-kc
apple-domain-verification=NQiNfxhG650h1NNX
cursor-domain-verification-msfjcw=uUobYDkpQFbcxRV1YCTWxtEVF
cursor-domain-verification-msfjcw=uUobYDkpQFbcxRV1YCTWxtEVF
v=spf1 include:_spf.cmail.ondemand.com include:amazonses.com include:spf.academymaker.de include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all
atlassian-domain-verification=LM3I4PPYvm+FLm7tdnResn/P1NpN7pO9niZE6mZ8/RN8szGhIYO5KxDIKUOYdOUj
apple-domain-verification=NQiNfxhG650h1NNX
jamf-site-verification=bhp8IEu4tU3mHVEJycyq6g
jamf-site-verification=bhp8IEu4tU3mHVEJycyq6g
v=spf1 include:_spf.cmail.ondemand.com include:amazonses.com include:spf.academymaker.de include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all
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.

ed51fa0c409063a36351b362c024ef60b4f71c7af6931371b65279c193dd0253bc2cd44df6ae34374feda60c1599019c0db600cb0811582a51b86e408bcc1a94
Evaluations reference 12 RFCs. Methods are reproducible using the verification commands provided. Results reflect DNS state at 6 Mar 2026, 15:14 UTC.
Download Raw Intelligence Download Checksum (.sha3)

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-sovanta.com.json.sha3 && echo '---' && openssl dgst -sha3-512 dns-intelligence-sovanta.com.json
Python 3 (cross-platform) 
python3 -c "import hashlib; print(hashlib.sha3_512(open('dns-intelligence-sovanta.com.json','rb').read()).hexdigest())"
sha3sum (coreutils 9+) 
sha3sum -a 512 dns-intelligence-sovanta.com.json
Compare the output against the .sha3 file or the checksum API at /api/analysis/6126/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 sovanta.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

Query A records (IPv4) RFC 1035 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com A
Query AAAA records (IPv6) RFC 1035 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com AAAA
Query MX records (mail servers) RFC 1035 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com MX
Query NS records (nameservers) RFC 1035 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com NS
Query TXT records RFC 1035 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com TXT

Email Authentication

Check SPF record RFC 7208 
dig +short sovanta.com TXT | grep -i spf
Check DMARC policy RFC 7489 
dig +short _dmarc.sovanta.com TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'selector1' RFC 6376 
dig +short selector1._domainkey.sovanta.com TXT

Domain Security

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

Transport Security

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

Brand & Trust

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

DNS Records

Check HTTPS/SVCB records RFC 9460 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com HTTPS

Domain Security

Check CDS/CDNSKEY automation records RFC 7344 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com CDS

Infrastructure Intelligence

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

Transport Security

Test STARTTLS on primary MX (sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com) RFC 3207 
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com:25 -servername sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5

Infrastructure Intelligence

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

AI Surface

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

Infrastructure Intelligence

ASN lookup for 85.13.138.84 (Team Cymru) 
dig +short 84.138.13.85.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 4843 runs
DKIM
Verified 4662 runs
DMARC
Verified 4827 runs
DANE/TLSA
Verified 4646 runs
DNSSEC
Verified 4824 runs
BIMI
Verified 4661 runs
MTA-STS
Verified 4664 runs
TLS-RPT
Verified 4666 runs
CAA
Verified 4658 runs
Maturity: Development → Verified → Consistent → Gold → Gold Master

Appendix: Verification Commands

The core DNS queries behind this report can be independently verified using these standard terminal commands (dig, openssl, curl). DNS Tool adds multi-resolver consensus, RFC-based evaluation, and cross-referencing on top of the raw data shown here.

DNS Records

Query A records (IPv4) (RFC 1035) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com A
Query AAAA records (IPv6) (RFC 1035) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com AAAA
Query MX records (mail servers) (RFC 1035) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com MX
Query NS records (nameservers) (RFC 1035) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com NS
Query TXT records (RFC 1035) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com TXT

Email Authentication

Check SPF record (RFC 7208) 
dig +short sovanta.com TXT | grep -i spf
Check DMARC policy (RFC 7489) 
dig +short _dmarc.sovanta.com TXT
Check DKIM key for selector 'selector1' (RFC 6376) 
dig +short selector1._domainkey.sovanta.com TXT

Domain Security

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

Transport Security

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

Brand & Trust

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

DNS Records

Check HTTPS/SVCB records (RFC 9460) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com HTTPS

Domain Security

Check CDS/CDNSKEY automation records (RFC 7344) 
dig +noall +answer sovanta.com CDS

Infrastructure Intelligence

RDAP domain registration lookup (RFC 9083) 
curl -sL 'https://rdap.org/domain/sovanta.com' | python3 -m json.tool | head -50

Transport Security

Test STARTTLS on primary MX (sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com) (RFC 3207) 
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com:25 -servername sovanta-com.mail.protection.outlook.com </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5

Infrastructure Intelligence

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

AI Surface

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

Infrastructure Intelligence

ASN lookup for 85.13.138.84 (Team Cymru) 
dig +short 84.138.13.85.origin.asn.cymru.com TXT
Running Multi-Source Intelligence Audit

sovanta.com

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.