
Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report
Posture Drift Detected
Compared against your previous observation on 8 Mar 2026 09:43 UTC.
| Field | Previous | Current | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DANE Status | info | warning | |
| DANE Present | false | true |
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 | 21541s |
1 day (86400s) |
medium | NS TTL is below typical — observed 21541s, 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. |
| A | 20s |
1 hour (3600s) |
high | A TTL is below typical — observed 20s, typical value is 1 hour (3600s). 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 3600 seconds per NIST SP 800-53 SI-18 relevance guidance. Use the TTL Tuner for profile-specific recommendations. |
| SOA | 6 hours (21600s) |
1 hour (3600s) |
high | SOA TTL is above typical — observed 6 hours (21600s), typical value is 1 hour (3600s). Long TTLs reduce DNS query volume but slow propagation when records change. Consider 3600 seconds for a balance of performance and flexibility 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.
w000-dsid-u05.nsa.gov
2025050622
hostmaster.nsa.gov
| Timer | Value | RFC 1912 Range |
|---|---|---|
| Refresh | 3600s | 1,200–43,200s (20 min – 12 hrs) |
| Retry | 1080s | Fraction of Refresh |
| Expire | 2419200s | 1,209,600–2,419,200s (14–28 days) |
| Minimum (Neg. Cache) | 900s | 300–86,400s (5 min – 1 day) |
| Parameter | Current | Suggested | Severity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| timeout_seconds | 5s |
8s |
low | Average scan duration is 32.1s, suggesting DNS responses are slow for this domain. Increasing timeout from 5s to 8s prevents premature resolution failures. RFC 8767 |
This domain uses RSA/SHA-1 (algorithm 5 or 7) which is NOT RECOMMENDED per RFC 8624. While still operational, plan migration to ECDSAP256SHA256 (algorithm 13) or Ed25519 (algorithm 15) for improved security and smaller signatures.
Your domain has DMARC reject — you qualify for BIMI, which displays your brand logo in receiving email clients that support it (Gmail, Apple Mail, Yahoo).
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Type | TXT |
| Host | default._bimi.nsa.gov (BIMI default record) |
| Value | v=BIMI1; l=https://nsa.gov/brand/logo.svg |
CAA records specify which Certificate Authorities may issue certificates for your domain, reducing the risk of unauthorized certificate issuance.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Type | CAA |
| Host | nsa.gov (root of domain — adjust CA to match your provider) |
| Value | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org" |
Your domain has DNSSEC + DANE — the strongest email transport security available. TLS-RPT (TLS Reporting) sends you reports about TLS connection failures when other servers try to deliver mail to your domain.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Type | TXT |
| Host | _smtp._tls.nsa.gov (SMTP TLS reporting record) |
| Value | v=TLSRPTv1; rua=mailto:tls-reports@nsa.gov |
MTA-STS enforces TLS encryption for inbound mail delivery, preventing downgrade attacks on your mail transport.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Type | TXT |
| Host | _mta-sts.nsa.gov (MTA-STS policy record) |
| Value | v=STSv1; id=nsa.gov |
Email Security Methodology Can this domain be impersonated by email? No SPF and DMARC reject policy enforced
SPF Record RFC 7208 §4 Verified
SPF valid with industry-standard soft fail (~all), 2/10 lookups
DMARC Policy RFC 7489 §6.3 Verified
DMARC policy reject (100%) - excellent protection
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.DKIM Records RFC 6376 §3.6 Verified
DKIM not discoverable via common selectors (large providers use rotating selectors)
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
No MTA-STS record found
MTA-STS policy enforcement is evaluated in Mail Transport Security below.
TLS-RPT RFC 8460 §3 Verified
No TLS-RPT record found
DMARC External Reporting Authorization RFC 7489 §7.1
All 1 external reporting domains properly authorized
| External Domain | Authorization | Auth Record |
|---|---|---|
mail.mil |
Authorized |
v=DMARC1
|
DANE / TLSA Verified Recon Methodology Can mail servers establish identity without a public CA? Yes
DANE partially configured — TLSA records on 2/6 MX hosts
| MX Host | Usage | Selector | Match | Certificate Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil |
2 DANE-TA (Trust anchor) | Public key only (SubjectPublicKeyInfo) | SHA-256 | c5b8c936ff91232aac9d346561b4dbe99997863c0e284a6767f32f98a422db1f |
pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil |
3 DANE-EE (Domain-issued certificate) | Public key only (SubjectPublicKeyInfo) | SHA-256 | c5b8c936ff91232aac9d346561b4dbe99997863c0e284a6767f32f98a422db1f |
sec-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil |
2 DANE-TA (Trust anchor) | Public key only (SubjectPublicKeyInfo) | SHA-256 | c5b8c936ff91232aac9d346561b4dbe99997863c0e284a6767f32f98a422db1f |
sec-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil |
3 DANE-EE (Domain-issued certificate) | Public key only (SubjectPublicKeyInfo) | SHA-256 | c5b8c936ff91232aac9d346561b4dbe99997863c0e284a6767f32f98a422db1f |
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).
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? Possible DMARC reject policy blocks email spoofing (RFC 7489 §6.3), but no BIMI brand verification and no CAA certificate restriction (RFC 8659) — visual impersonation via lookalike domains and unrestricted certificate issuance remain open vectors
BIMI BIMI Spec Verified Warning
No BIMI record found
CAA RFC 8659 §4 Verified Warning
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
/.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 significant AI surface findings
llms.txt llmstxt.org
AI Crawler Governance (robots.txt) RFC 9309 IETF Draft
Content-Usage Directive IETF Draft
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.
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
Hidden Prompt Artifacts
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.
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 a5-66.akam.net — 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: a5-66.akam.net, a12-67.akam.net, a2-64.akam.net, a1-107.akam.net, a24-65.akam.net, a11-66.akam.net
Delegation Consistency 2 Issues
Delegation consistency: 2 issue(s) found — Parent/child NS delegation alignment: DS↔DNSKEY, glue records, TTL drift, SOA serial sync.
- DNSKEY records missing at child — DS records at parent have no matching keys
- Could not retrieve NS TTL from parent zone
DS ↔ DNSKEY Alignment Misaligned
Glue Record Completeness Complete
| Nameserver | In-Bailiwick | IPv4 Glue | IPv6 Glue | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
a1-107.akam.net |
No | N/A | N/A | OK |
a11-66.akam.net |
No | N/A | N/A | OK |
a12-67.akam.net |
No | N/A | N/A | OK |
a2-64.akam.net |
No | N/A | N/A | OK |
a24-65.akam.net |
No | N/A | N/A | OK |
a5-66.akam.net |
No | N/A | N/A | OK |
NS TTL Comparison Drift
SOA Serial Consistency Consistent
a1-107.akam.net: 2.025050622e+09a11-66.akam.net: 2.025050622e+09a12-67.akam.net: 2.025050622e+09a2-64.akam.net: 2.025050622e+09a24-65.akam.net: 2.025050622e+09a5-66.akam.net: 2.025050622e+09Nameserver Fleet Matrix Healthy
Analyzed 6 nameserver(s) for nsa.gov — Per-nameserver reachability, ASN diversity, SOA serial sync, and lame delegation checks.
| Nameserver | IPv4 | IPv6 | ASN / Operator | UDP | TCP | AA | SOA Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a11-66.akam.net |
84.53.139.66 | 2600:1480:1::42 | AS21342 | 2025050622 | |||
a1-107.akam.net |
193.108.91.107 | 2600:1401:2::6b | AS21342 | 2025050622 | |||
a5-66.akam.net |
95.100.168.66 | 2600:1480:b000::42 | AS21342 | 2025050622 | |||
a24-65.akam.net |
2.16.130.65 | 2600:1480:9800::41 | AS21342 | 2025050622 | |||
a2-64.akam.net |
95.100.174.64 | 2600:1480:7000::40 | AS21342 | 2025050622 | |||
a12-67.akam.net |
184.26.160.67 | 2600:1480:f000::43 | AS21342 | 2025050622 |
1 ASN(s), 6 /24 prefix(es) — consider adding diversity
Mail Transport Security Beta Is mail transport encrypted and verified? Yes DANE/TLSA provides cryptographic transport verification
Transport encryption enforced via DNS policy (1 signal(s))
Policy Assessment Primary
- DANE/TLSA records published — mail servers pin TLS certificates via DNSSEC (RFC 7672)
Telemetry
Live Probe Supplementary
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)
| ASN | Name | Country |
|---|---|---|
AS16625 |
Akamai Technologies, Inc. | US |
23.204.54.8 → AS16625 (23.204.32.0/19)Edge / CDN Success
Domain appears to use direct origin hosting
SaaS TXT Footprint Success
No SaaS services detected
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.
Domain Security Methodology Can DNS responses be tampered with in transit? No DNSSEC signed and validated, cryptographic chain of trust verified
DNSSEC RFC 4033 §2 Verified Signed RSASHA1-NSEC3-SHA1 Legacy
DNSSEC fully configured and validated — AD (Authenticated Data) flag set by resolver 8.8.8.8 confirming cryptographic chain of trust from root to zone (RFC 4035 §3.2.3)
NS Delegation Verified
6 nameserver(s) configured
Traffic & Routing Where does this domain's traffic actually terminate?
AIPv4 Address
AAAAIPv6 Address
MXMail Servers
SRVServices
Subdomain Discovery RFC 6962 Recon LIVE What subdomains and infrastructure are exposed in certificate logs? 10 subdomains discovered
How did we find these?| Subdomain | Source | Status | Provider / CNAME | Certificates | First Seen | Issuer(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
apps.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
www.nsa.gov.edgekey.net
|
2 | 2026-01-25T20:28:21 | Let's Encrypt |
cesp.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current | — | 1 | 2025-07-01T00:00:00 | Amazon |
code.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
nationalsecurityagency.github.io
|
4 | 2026-02-22T00:38:09 | Let's Encrypt |
cybercenter.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
cybercenter.nsa.gov.edgekey.net
|
2 | 2026-01-25T20:28:21 | Let's Encrypt |
m.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
nsa.gov.edgekey.net
|
6 | 2026-02-19T17:12:39 | Let's Encrypt |
museum.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
museum.nsa.gov.edgekey.net
|
2 | 2026-01-25T20:28:21 | Let's Encrypt |
oig.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
oig.nsa.gov.edgekey.net
|
6 | 2026-02-19T17:12:39 | Let's Encrypt |
smtp.nsa.gov
|
DNS | Current | — | — | — | — |
vpn.nsa.gov
|
DNS | Current | — | — | — | — |
www.nsa.gov
|
CT Log | Current |
nsa.gov.edgekey.net
|
6 | 2026-02-19T17:12:39 | Let's Encrypt |
DNS Evidence Diff Side-by-side comparison
23.204.54.8
23.204.54.8
v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;fo=1;rua=mailto:DMARC_REPORTING@nsa.gov,mailto:DMARC_reports@mail.mil;ruf=mailto:DMARC_REPORTING@nsa.gov,mailto:DMARC_reports@mail.mil;rf=afrf;pct=100
v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;fo=1;rua=mailto:DMARC_REPORTING@nsa.gov,mailto:DMARC_reports@mail.mil;ruf=mailto:DMARC_REPORTING@nsa.gov,mailto:DMARC_reports@mail.mil;rf=afrf;pct=100
10 pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil.
30 emsm-gh1-uea10.ncsc.mil.
30 w455-emsm-u10.ncsc.mil.
30 w455-emsm-u10.ncsc.mil.
30 emsm-gh1-uea11.ncsc.mil.
10 pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil.
30 w455-emsm-u11.ncsc.mil.
30 w455-emsm-u11.ncsc.mil.
20 sec-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil.
20 sec-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil.
30 emsm-gh1-uea10.ncsc.mil.
30 emsm-gh1-uea11.ncsc.mil.
a11-66.akam.net.
a2-64.akam.net.
a24-65.akam.net.
a12-67.akam.net.
a5-66.akam.net.
a5-66.akam.net.
a12-67.akam.net.
a24-65.akam.net.
a1-107.akam.net.
a11-66.akam.net.
a2-64.akam.net.
a1-107.akam.net.
w000-dsid-u05.nsa.gov. hostmaster.nsa.gov. 2025050622 3600 1080 2419200 900
w000-dsid-u05.nsa.gov. hostmaster.nsa.gov. 2025050622 3600 1080 2419200 900
v=spf1 ip4:214.29.60.2/32 ip4:214.29.60.3/32 ip4:214.80.121.17/32 ip4:214.80.121.18/32 include:_spf.eemsg.mail.mil include:amazonses.com ~all
v=spf1 ip4:214.29.60.2/32 ip4:214.29.60.3/32 ip4:214.80.121.17/32 ip4:214.80.121.18/32 include:_spf.eemsg.mail.mil include:amazonses.com ~all
ms=ms92230317
ms=ms92230317
DNS History Timeline BETA
When was a record added, removed, or changed — and could that change be the problem?
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.
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.
2b793c818800f7198873db88323c97abcfceb567febd45e871d44fcb7d54f15311717875e4e75141b0d9580c649811799623f2b4abab1b7e75278282bf3c812b
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).
cat dns-intelligence-nsa.gov.json.sha3 && echo '---' && openssl dgst -sha3-512 dns-intelligence-nsa.gov.json
python3 -c "import hashlib; print(hashlib.sha3_512(open('dns-intelligence-nsa.gov.json','rb').read()).hexdigest())"
sha3sum -a 512 dns-intelligence-nsa.gov.json
.sha3 file or the checksum API at /api/analysis/6565/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 nsa.gov. 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
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov A
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov AAAA
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov MX
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov NS
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov TXT
Email Authentication
dig +short nsa.gov TXT | grep -i spf
dig +short _dmarc.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short default._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short google._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short selector1._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short selector2._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
Domain Security
dig +dnssec +noall +answer nsa.gov DNSKEY
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov DS
dig +dnssec +cd nsa.gov A @1.1.1.1
Transport Security
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.w455-emsm-u10.ncsc.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.emsm-gh1-uea11.ncsc.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.w455-emsm-u11.ncsc.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.sec-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.emsm-gh1-uea10.ncsc.mil TLSA
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil:25 -servername pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -subject -dates
dig +short _mta-sts.nsa.gov TXT
curl -sL https://mta-sts.nsa.gov/.well-known/mta-sts.txt
dig +short _smtp._tls.nsa.gov TXT
Brand & Trust
dig +short default._bimi.nsa.gov TXT
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov CAA
DNS Records
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov HTTPS
Domain Security
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov CDS
Infrastructure Intelligence
curl -sL 'https://rdap.org/domain/nsa.gov' | python3 -m json.tool | head -50
Transport Security
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil:25 -servername pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5
Infrastructure Intelligence
curl -s 'https://crt.sh/?q=%25.nsa.gov&output=json' | python3 -c "import json,sys; [print(e['name_value']) for e in json.load(sys.stdin)]" | sort -u | head -20
curl -sL https://nsa.gov/.well-known/security.txt | head -20
AI Surface
curl -sI https://nsa.gov/llms.txt | head -5
curl -s https://nsa.gov/robots.txt | grep -i -E 'GPTBot|ChatGPT|Claude|Anthropic|Google-Extended|CCBot|PerplexityBot'
Infrastructure Intelligence
dig +short 8.54.204.23.origin.asn.cymru.com TXT
dig, openssl, and curl — standard tools available on macOS, Linux, and WSL. Results may vary slightly due to DNS propagation timing and resolver caching.
Appendix: Verification Commands
DNS Records
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov A
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov AAAA
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov MX
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov NS
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov TXT
Email Authentication
dig +short nsa.gov TXT | grep -i spf
dig +short _dmarc.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short default._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short google._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short selector1._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
dig +short selector2._domainkey.nsa.gov TXT
Domain Security
dig +dnssec +noall +answer nsa.gov DNSKEY
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov DS
dig +dnssec +cd nsa.gov A @1.1.1.1
Transport Security
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.w455-emsm-u10.ncsc.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.emsm-gh1-uea11.ncsc.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.w455-emsm-u11.ncsc.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.sec-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil TLSA
dig +noall +answer _25._tcp.emsm-gh1-uea10.ncsc.mil TLSA
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil:25 -servername pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil 2>/dev/null | openssl x509 -noout -subject -dates
dig +short _mta-sts.nsa.gov TXT
curl -sL https://mta-sts.nsa.gov/.well-known/mta-sts.txt
dig +short _smtp._tls.nsa.gov TXT
Brand & Trust
dig +short default._bimi.nsa.gov TXT
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov CAA
DNS Records
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov HTTPS
Domain Security
dig +noall +answer nsa.gov CDS
Infrastructure Intelligence
curl -sL 'https://rdap.org/domain/nsa.gov' | python3 -m json.tool | head -50
Transport Security
openssl s_client -starttls smtp -connect pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil:25 -servername pri-jeemsg.eemsg.mail.mil </dev/null 2>/dev/null | head -5
Infrastructure Intelligence
curl -s 'https://crt.sh/?q=%25.nsa.gov&output=json' | python3 -c "import json,sys; [print(e['name_value']) for e in json.load(sys.stdin)]" | sort -u | head -20
curl -sL https://nsa.gov/.well-known/security.txt | head -20
AI Surface
curl -sI https://nsa.gov/llms.txt | head -5
curl -s https://nsa.gov/robots.txt | grep -i -E 'GPTBot|ChatGPT|Claude|Anthropic|Google-Extended|CCBot|PerplexityBot'
Infrastructure Intelligence
dig +short 8.54.204.23.origin.asn.cymru.com TXT
