Skip to main content

Security report for adobe.io

Adobe Inc. · Technology

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The website demonstrates a generally strong security posture with no critical or high-level issues detected. Key strengths include excellent SSL/TLS implementation and robust network security, which ensure encrypted communications and solid perimeter defenses. However, several medium-level concerns highlight gaps in compliance and domain security practices, such as missing security headers, lack of GDPR and NIS2 compliance validation, absence of DKIM records for email authentication, and the absence of DNSSEC. These issues could increase the risk of data breaches, regulatory penalties, and email spoofing attacks, potentially impacting customer trust and business reputation. Low-level issues like missing CAA records indicate room for refinement in DNS configurations. Addressing these medium and low-tier vulnerabilities will enhance overall resilience, regulatory compliance, and trustworthiness. Proactive remediation will reduce exposure to common web threats and help safeguard sensitive data and communication channels.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of adobe.io. View the latest report
3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Medium

      No DKIM record found (common selectors)

      DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

      What to do: Configure DKIM with your email provider

  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Medium

      DNSSEC Not Enabled

      DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

      What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks

      • CAPEC-142
      • RFC 4033
      • RFC 4035

Keep watching adobe.io

This scan found 4 issues across 3 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
100
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
Average
93
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Technical notes

Notes

The absence of key security headers leaves the website vulnerable to attacks such as cross-site scripting and clickjacking, which can compromise user data and site integrity. Failure in GDPR and NIS2 analyses suggests non-compliance or incomplete implementation of required data protection and cybersecurity frameworks, exposing the organization to regulatory penalties and increased risk. Missing DKIM records undermine email security by allowing potential email spoofing, increasing the likelihood of phishing and fraud. DNSSEC is not enabled, making the DNS infrastructure susceptible to cache poisoning and man-in-the-middle attacks. Additionally, the lack of CAA records means there are no restrictions on which Certificate Authorities can issue certificates for the domain, increasing the risk of mis-issuance. Despite these issues, SSL/TLS and network security scores are optimal, indicating strong encryption and network defense mechanisms.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 71/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with adobe.io. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review adobe.io.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.