Skip to main content
DNS Tool
Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report
Generated 10 Mar 2026, 14:24 UTC
Duration 23.2s
Version v26.35.35
Integrity 0003540b9562449f453055f9a0d400f1ba9136c8960271890f47974b772bacdc01d02bb1619a2200e76bf54e4c1c66b471d5082e2c9274f8eca6c6d54d93e201
Subject Domain
github.com

Engineer's DNS Intelligence Report

github.com Low Risk
10 Mar 2026, 14:24 UTC · 23.2s ·v26.35.35 · SHA-3-512: 0003✱✱✱✱ Verify ·Cross-Referenced
Executive Topology Replay
Recon Mode Snapshot Re-analyze New Domain
Engineer workspace · evidence preserved

Read the verdict first. Descend only as far as the incident requires.

This report keeps the complete technical record while separating decision, interpretation, evidence, and raw reproduction into a stable disclosure gradient.

L0PostureL1InterpretationL2EvidenceL3Raw & reproduce
Hurry path
MX & Routing Subdomains DNSSEC What changed
KEYBOARD !1@2#3$4%5^6 jump to that section · esc back to the verdict
DNS Security & Trust Posture
Confidence: MODERATE · 68/100
4 protocols configured, 4 not configured, 1 unavailable on provider Enterprise DNS Posture: Enterprise DNS (Multi-Provider Redundancy) detected on this domain — an unsigned DNSSEC chain here reads as a deliberate operator choice, not the gap it would be for a small operator. Network-layer compensating controls are not verifiable via DNS alone; see DNS-layer detail. Why we go beyond letter grades
Jump To: MTA-STS TLS-RPT BIMI DNSSEC
Sorted by severity — worst first
Email Spoofing
Protected
Brand Impersonation
Not Setup
DNS Tampering
Unsigned
Certificate Control
Configured
Monitoring
Partial
DANE
Unavailable on Provider
TRACE L0 · DNS Tampering — Unsigned L1 · 02 · Domain Security · DNSSEC L3 · Reproduce commands
Not Configured
MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI, DNSSEC
Unavailable on Provider
DANE
Configured
SPF, DMARC (reject), DKIM, CAA
Priority Actions 4 total Achievable posture: Hardened
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
Low Add BIMI Record

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).

RFC 9495
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.

RFC 8460
Open Remediation Workspace — Copy-Paste Ready Records
Registrar (RDAP) OBSERVED LIVE
MarkMonitor Inc.
Where domain was purchased
Email Service Provider INFERRED
Google Workspace
Strongly Protected
Web Hosting
Unknown
Where website is hosted
DNS Hosting OBSERVED
Amazon Route 53
Where DNS records are edited
Footprint Google Workspace 10 SaaS Services
01 Identity & policy · L1 Email Security Can this domain be impersonated by email? SPF DMARC DKIM MTA-STS TLS-RPT MX & Routing Protected
Email Security Methodology Can this domain be impersonated by email? No SPF and DMARC reject policy enforced

SPF Record RFC 7208 §4 Gold

Does this domain declare who may send email on its behalf? Yes
Success ~all 8/10 lookups

SPF valid with industry-standard soft fail (~all), 8/10 lookups

v=spf1 ip4:192.30.252.0/22 include:_netblocks.google.com include:_netblocks2.google.com include:_netblocks3.google.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:mail.zendesk.com include:_spf.salesforce.com include:servers.mcsv.net include:mktomail.com ip4:62.253.227.114 ip4:166.78.69.169 ip4:166.78.69.170 ip4:166.78.71.131 ip4:167.89.101.2 ip4:167.89.101.192/28 ip4:192.254.112.60 ip4:192.254.112.98/31 ip4:192.254.113.10 ip4:192.254.113.101 ip4:192.254.114.176 ~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 reject: the strongest compatible security stance, aligned with CISA and RFC guidance.

DMARC Policy RFC 7489 §6.3 Gold

Are spoofed emails rejected or quarantined? Yes — reject policy
Success p=reject

DMARC policy reject (100%) - excellent protection

v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@github.com
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
No forensic reporting (ruf) tag — this is correct. The absence of ruf= is not a gap. 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 regardless. The DMARCbis draft (draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis) has formally removed ruf= from the specification, confirming its deprecation. Omitting ruf= is the recommended modern practice. RFC 7489 §7.3 — Forensic Reports
RFC 7489 Conformant — DMARC record conforms to RFC 7489 §6.3 with full enforcement.
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 Gold

Are outbound emails cryptographically signed? Yes — verified
Found 2048-bit

Found DKIM for 10 selector(s) with strong keys (2048-bit)

SPF authorizes Microsoft 365 servers, but MX records point to Google Workspace. The Microsoft 365 SPF include likely supports ancillary services (e.g., calendar invitations, shared documents) rather than primary mailbox hosting.
cm._domainkey Campaign Monitor 2048-bit Adequate
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDXLybkpDQnCyQYlQc46kL2sPMsYDqwkjPyFRSDiaq6qUeujAlU775+f8rzxIrjHc8sPstAZOuJzqcgDPiidRxdE2Th/lcnfbN4btWvJwHKK6KD/IazNWNqQtunYyPzfmSRTtOE4Nii4Oxwx1glTJAVhCTObD2uh2U44lCG+pgYswIDAQAB
google._domainkey Google Workspace 2048-bit Adequate
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAj6T5sl/RwdSqGoYWaWaFbS2UAeyPrEmd0gogocmRfS441qwR8/0KB81Hw89P0l4YiFRrXYk7NVIGfyCRHAYYZUzCkGeOysI2EjgzLFhd/NEsbRzOEc/kWkK/RO6JFq/5lOn6M9AZw/ap9tds4JG9ApgNNdSpPxp9DmvpsOSgNMVflRxQFrk3kdS4RNAPKu/OPoA7dlR/A/pECryjRoYgENtDXzdnK70HgCekems6UDzxDj61cjyoKoXtEMF/QsaHEQ1Gjfv014rDJBsubk/kT5VqHkWHa/ia68Z5r228Ety/wFfQNjXTx/J7KGZ9GkZlKED659eiJcLnWcKDSiQlhwIDAQAB
k1._domainkey MailChimp 2048-bit Adequate
k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDbNrX2cY/GUKIFx2G/1I00ftdAj713WP9AQ1xir85i89sA2guU0ta4UX1Xzm06XIU6iBP41VwmPwBGRNofhBVR+e6WHUoNyIR4Bn84LVcfZE20rmDeXQblIupNWBqLXM1Q+VieI/eZu/7k9/vOkLSaQQdml4Cv8lb3PcnluMVIhQIDAQAB;
k2._domainkey MailChimp 2048-bit Adequate
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv2aC2KjGKLOwTweBY5A9RpjsxaBXR9r7OAU6U8/zn92ivImI75naUujWbItRI/QmL1jy5PWGqLwoUA0b90ObWaLDc+i9MtTNmGeWO009hr20fIxhGg6XBT2kjZ1DTThopSe1nAndsupmcBwlQ5Q6LJ+ZAxLcujnPIxM0ZBLmgpkv8u6RfY4eFP8OLvdAW3oSuB0DyLDigQX4Sj8wBO4YIdQH6AAmBeOsidsKAFNFUCpc3vCxtBDR12U+cBg724l3sBkMQ8evnz6idnqxq9QAVYh8k4kJ+RP+6cqTdy7LjIm8xY/bQNpQIpGUAuDo2DjLcCDun9DAI4Q/3z+Q0o9QuQIDAQAB;
k3._domainkey MailChimp 2048-bit Adequate
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsYGiMSn7fsUqSvfSX40x9R1OlRtbNiCY80lHRIlcKx3XDIR7257aUx+q9CSIARdfTL6KCuLGNFx5g9TgVr6png4ajcieSQGtOehBgxnkDN8aAA5TX0FmFrcefJU0JoxLOF09EKgXxhSSHCk/ekVb0PXSboHXoZ9+EI404F1qhcwXXIgHXTaUthHTut2P6BBZhIXIgvDe/w49GchR7MRJqjNb7neEBbYHbgWuBTvvHCg7Gy6m6n9krYK+ROWq3dVvXy9plAGK3ygM+HtjIiMt7arRGMOF0WgDTz7YdN9BGpt6BvXxLnjiQcgS5T9n+cIyPZgiWzDMXNlaEEdKTEKxrwIDAQAB;
s1._domainkey SendGrid 2048-bit Adequate
k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyn3fMCVpb7ryIRKOGXhXVGYmsWUitNlSckqGHOwNFZgFadplOrD+Qzf1XQkP7MH/VB/97DsAAJGtEXW1Uq71Hjnfr/DuBN/YfjF/gU70qEFb7q1sdIiNtjFL2TkOpoW+X/bhhPNheW/fYwyFb6ZHFM6LTgXyuimWRHTOUP3VjZzhNVda79nt+2WZYbS4l8HdMgWpTNHjpVw5PtXESA9KBg/evSRk5fIaXIX5eRXW3baoV9yVzD8O29/IL/DiSk+yNvaO0EHL5c4yGuZJhGzvpiznb2IDVdemJK4Dqzdy5FTN/SGYZhAEr7MguG3Z314hMS2scgMsOMgB64uj/6+6UwIDAQAB
s2._domainkey SendGrid 2048-bit Adequate
k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAnNt2/H6bKs99C6DAaokPp62KN9mKaD20D1PBakkObejkJvzM6Un/fKHPeI2/qXdvFFBPQE3mxMNoe+hwBVDgMgCuZEn8J6gZYI4amITure9/ny6+GaNVRoH2m6xAtWwKINkKxMayGiehkWlRVb7D23F0U8y+VDHKQFz1bnXA5jDpcDiMXy8i2lV5vEys+qt+1WGhDKCAwamT8c3xkZz8aXMJaXYCiN2HMgHDU81+mVCk4+u6mY+a98APVfFhsQ0KCq/mVZXaXTV06QrG9M5PtBHUFW7VtwXKp+AFrAut0KW1NnwaA5IGA5sc+n9dma7bSqdfGS+ixdSmJ69NwmYSHwIDAQAB
smtpapi._domainkey SendGrid 2048-bit Adequate
k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDPtW5iwpXVPiH5FzJ7Nrl8USzuY9zqqzjE0D1r04xDN6qwziDnmgcFNNfMewVKN2D1O+2J9N14hRprzByFwfQW76yojh54Xu3uSbQ3JP0A7k8o8GutRF8zbFUA8n0ZH2y0cIEjMliXY4W4LwPA7m4q0ObmvSjhd63O9d8z1XkUBwIDAQAB
zendesk1._domainkey Zendesk 2048-bit Adequate
v=DKIM1;t=s;n=core;k=rsa;p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA9IqdLrO3Zr2/56MHt8oQVCQorP0Bl2Fz9sM2tFBnJCdB/HogQmuudEg2xAovCN2PYpw44UijIvPuBoT9vxiv6ZCBJTLJXa82r6ke5rE4tbe9NKFIrVIb9S306cJDrnKFMDb8p0dU/Su0+eUR5gVAOtCuz2L8HAzs5edvsEvD/Fb4ny1RLNSEPZkIQLfGhVxQeWANm3+1Jwb/OBVXV9k0nKpWrpgqcmO7NzroJirp014RQY7rGi60JLUubc6XhvoFQBQrtOAdVlZC5wvfS1bgpq5kQpdP7cajIqWCeqxPTeo0ZUpey2ZcaygEsZz0Z3Gs5wDzyuqd7/ADpr2jNF7ozwIDAQAB
zendesk2._domainkey Zendesk 2048-bit Adequate
v=DKIM1; t=s; n=core; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAmiSFNkgXrO3I8aOaPONDZWHv027rkiGIwb838OyXPgvFDEkCV/qGcdXSjZnaVAadrTm/oKnL8WOltP9zB1FLEuKt0fTi5zRyKPE4oIYCnEzXwrGqzjUcCABQBawQVqvXjDOaYh9Lhp8W5PYOLo905vRW7ipyIMDhuzBOJls91/WWXnNK0OwP3RghiisZjA3K2KqtRwf7w6GjNeNuAMNhvcmgAN15d/mhK+dev/hcRbal66RoYyTD8c0F0isahWH0envEX8aj+SBhheNk0/U37dGE+4nFaY5yP9CUlYjFKDSIKZgHzG4Hci3t/RubU58pi6BCrQQdAFvIOeDFeCZ0ywIDAQAB
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 Gold

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 Gold

Will failures in TLS delivery be reported? No reporting
Warning

No TLS-RPT record found

02 Chain of authority · L1 Domain Security Can DNS answers and certificate issuance be trusted? DANE / TLSA CAA Delegation DNSSEC & NS Unsigned
DANE / TLSA Gold Recon Methodology Can mail servers establish identity without a public CA? No
RFC 7672 §3 RFC 6698 §2 Not Available

DANE not available — Google Workspace does not support inbound DANE/TLSA on its MX infrastructure

DANE not deployable on Google Workspace

Google Workspace supports DANE for outbound mail verification but does not publish TLSA records for its MX hosts.

Recommended alternative: MTA-STS

Note: Google Workspace does validate DANE/TLSA when sending mail to DANE-enabled recipients (outbound DANE).

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 Google Workspace 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).

CAA RFC 8659 §4 Gold Success

Does this domain restrict who can issue TLS certificates? Yes

CAA configured - only Let's Encrypt, DigiCert, Sectigo, GlobalSign can issue certificates (wildcard issuance: Let's Encrypt, DigiCert, Sectigo per RFC 8659 §4.3)

Authorized CAs: Let's Encrypt DigiCert Sectigo GlobalSign
0 issuewild "letsencrypt.org"
0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
0 issue "digicert.com"
0 issuewild "digicert.com"
0 issuewild "sectigo.com"
0 issue "sectigo.com"
0 issue "globalsign.com"
Since September 2025, all public CAs must verify domain control from multiple geographic locations (Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration, CA/B Forum Ballot SC-067). CAA records are now checked from multiple network perspectives before certificate issuance.
Delegation Consistency 4 Issues

Delegation consistency: 4 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
  • SOA serial 1656468023 seen on: dns4.p08.nsone.net, dns1.p08.nsone.net, dns2.p08.nsone.net, dns3.p08.nsone.net
  • SOA serial 1 seen on: ns-1283.awsdns-32.org, ns-421.awsdns-52.com, ns-520.awsdns-01.net, ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk
  • SOA serial inconsistency indicates zone data may not be fully synchronized across nameservers

DS ↔ DNSKEY Alignment Aligned

Glue Record Completeness Complete

NameserverIn-BailiwickIPv4 GlueIPv6 GlueStatus
dns1.p08.nsone.net No N/A N/A OK
dns2.p08.nsone.net No N/A N/A OK
dns3.p08.nsone.net No N/A N/A OK
dns4.p08.nsone.net No N/A N/A OK
ns-1283.awsdns-32.org No N/A N/A OK
ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk No N/A N/A OK
ns-421.awsdns-52.com No N/A N/A OK
ns-520.awsdns-01.net No N/A N/A OK

NS TTL Comparison Drift

Child TTL: 900s Drift: 0s

SOA Serial Consistency 2 Unique Serials

dns1.p08.nsone.net: 1.656468023e+09
dns2.p08.nsone.net: 1.656468023e+09
dns3.p08.nsone.net: 1.656468023e+09
dns4.p08.nsone.net: 1.656468023e+09
ns-1283.awsdns-32.org: 1
ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk: 1
ns-421.awsdns-52.com: 1
ns-520.awsdns-01.net: 1
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 Gold 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

8 nameserver(s) configured

Nameservers: dns1.p08.nsone.net dns2.p08.nsone.net dns3.p08.nsone.net dns4.p08.nsone.net ns-1283.awsdns-32.org ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk ns-421.awsdns-52.com ns-520.awsdns-01.net
Enterprise DNS (Multi-Provider Redundancy)
Nameservers span 2 providers (Amazon Route 53, NS1 (IBM)). Multi-provider DNS provides resilience against single-provider outages — an enterprise best practice for critical domains.
DNS provider(s): Amazon Route 53 NS1 (IBM)
Multi-Resolver Verification Recon: Discrepancy detected - Some resolvers returned different results (3 differences found)
Resolver Differences:
A: DNS4EU returned different results: [140.82.121.3]
A: Cloudflare returned different results: [140.82.113.4]
TXT: OpenDNS returned different results: [MS=6BF03E6AF5CB689E315FB6199603BABF2C88D805 MS=ms44452932 MS=ms58704441 TAILSCALE-xOzoDvFUzZr5YYVCQFuD apple-domain-verification=RyQhdzTl6Z6x8ZP4 docusign=087098e3-3d46-47b7-9b4e-8a23028154cd jamf-site-verification=XtaPNIYghF_e_xRDI8CjgQ loom-site-verification=f3787154f1154b7880e720a511ea664d shopify-verification-code=t1YPwcmvnxZyBycaCpk1MPyWoFs72o]
This may indicate DNS propagation in progress or geo-based DNS routing.
03 Delivery path · L1 Transport Security Will mail transport resist downgrade and interception? STARTTLS MTA-STS policy TLS-RPT
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
  • Google Workspace enforces TLS 1.2+ with valid certificates on all inbound/outbound mail
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.
What Is Measured: Our probe’s TLS 1.3 handshake offers the hybrid post-quantum group X25519MLKEM768 (X25519 combined with ML-KEM-768). The Key Exchange column reports the group each mail server actually negotiated — direct, observed evidence of its post-quantum readiness toward a hybrid-capable client.
Quantum-Safe Hybrid: The session key agreement combines classical X25519 with ML-KEM-768, standardized in FIPS 203 (final, August 2024). This protects the key exchange against “harvest now, decrypt later” collection by a future quantum adversary.
Classical: The server completed the handshake without selecting the offered hybrid group. This is not a deviation — no RFC currently requires post-quantum key exchange. The X25519MLKEM768 group is defined in draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem (Standards Track draft, not yet an RFC); the hybrid approach is described in draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design (IESG-approved Informational). Servers supporting only other hybrid groups also read as Classical here.
Transition Outlook: NIST’s draft transition guidance (NIST IR 8547) projects quantum-vulnerable algorithms being deprecated after 2030 and disallowed after 2035. Hybrid key exchange requires TLS 1.3. This finding is informational and does not affect this domain’s grade.
04 Human-visible identity · L1 Brand & Trust Can this brand be convincingly faked? BIMI & VMC CAA · see Domain Security Not Setup
Brand Security Can this brand be convincingly faked? Possible DMARC reject policy blocks email spoofing (RFC 7489 §6.3) and CAA restricts certificate issuance (RFC 8659 §4), but no BIMI brand verification — lookalike domains display identically in inboxes without visual proof of authenticity

BIMI BIMI Spec Gold Warning

Is the brand identity verified and displayed in inboxes? No

No BIMI record found

05 Ownership & attack surface · L1 Infrastructure Intelligence Who operates this domain, and what is exposed? Registrar / RDAP security.txt AI Surface Subdomains
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (security.txt) Is there a verified way to report security issues? Yes RFC 9116

security.txt properly configured

Contact

https://hackerone.com/github

Expires

unparseable Valid

Policy

https://bounty.github.com
en Canonical URL Hiring Acknowledgments
Source: https://github.com/.well-known/security.txt
AI Surface Scanner Beta Is this domain discoverable by AI — and protected from abuse? Yes

AI governance signals observed

llms.txt llmstxt.org
Is this domain publishing AI-readable brand context? Yes
llms.txt found — domain provides structured context for LLMs View llms.txt
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 View 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 (2 items)
TypeDetailSeverityConfidence
llms_txt_found llms.txt file found providing structured LLM context info Observed
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.
Sources scanned (1)
  • https://github.com/
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 dns1.p08.nsone.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: dns1.p08.nsone.net, ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk, ns-421.awsdns-52.com, ns-1283.awsdns-32.org, dns3.p08.nsone.net, dns4.p08.nsone.net, dns2.p08.nsone.net, ns-520.awsdns-01.net

Nameserver Fleet Matrix 2 Issues

Analyzed 8 nameserver(s) for github.com — Per-nameserver reachability, ASN diversity, SOA serial sync, and lame delegation checks.

Findings:
  • SOA serial 1656468023 on: dns4.p08.nsone.net, dns2.p08.nsone.net, dns3.p08.nsone.net, dns1.p08.nsone.net
  • SOA serial 1 on: ns-421.awsdns-52.com, ns-520.awsdns-01.net, ns-1283.awsdns-32.org, ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk
Nameserver IPv4 IPv6 ASN / Operator UDP TCP AA SOA Serial Anycast Node
dns4.p08.nsone.net 198.51.45.72 2a00:edc0:6259:7:8::4 AS62597 1656468023 N/A
ns-421.awsdns-52.com 205.251.193.165 2600:9000:5301:a500::1 AS16509
Amazon.com, Inc. 		1 N/A
dns2.p08.nsone.net 198.51.45.8 2a00:edc0:6259:7:8::2 AS62597 1656468023 N/A
dns3.p08.nsone.net 198.51.44.72 2620:4d:4000:6259:7:8:0:3 AS62597 1656468023 N/A
ns-520.awsdns-01.net 205.251.194.8 2600:9000:5302:800::1 AS16509
Amazon.com, Inc. 		1 N/A
ns-1283.awsdns-32.org 205.251.197.3 2600:9000:5305:300::1 AS16509
Amazon.com, Inc. 		1 N/A
dns1.p08.nsone.net 198.51.44.8 2620:4d:4000:6259:7:8:0:1 AS62597 1656468023 N/A
ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk 205.251.198.171 2600:9000:5306:ab00::1 AS16509
Amazon.com, Inc. 		1 N/A
Unique ASNs
2
Unique Operators
1
Unique /24 Prefixes
6
Diversity Score