Microsoft · Technology · United States
Low risk. No critical or high findings.
The website https://m365.cloud.microsoft/ is an official Microsoft portal for Microsoft 365 Copilot login and collaboration services. It offers access to online versions of Microsoft productivity applications such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, and OneDrive. The site targets a broad audience including individuals, families, businesses, and enterprises, positioning Microsoft as a market leader in cloud-based productivity solutions. The business model is subscription-based cloud services under the Microsoft 365 brand, supported by a large enterprise infrastructure and global presence. Technically, the site is hosted on Microsoft Azure and uses modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, with resources served from Microsoft-owned CDNs. The site demonstrates strong digital maturity with fast performance, mobile optimization, and good accessibility features. Security is robust with HTTPS enforced, comprehensive security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The site uses Azure Monitor for analytics and tracking, reflecting enterprise-grade monitoring. Security posture is strong, with best practices observed in SSL configuration and resource integrity. However, the absence of visible privacy policy and terms of service links on the analyzed page slightly reduces privacy compliance confidence. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found, which could be improved for transparency. Overall, the domain registration and WHOIS data confirm the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the site as an official Microsoft property. The overall risk assessment is low, with no suspicious or malicious indicators detected. Strategic recommendations include enhancing privacy and security policy visibility, establishing a public vulnerability disclosure program, and maintaining rigorous security audits. These steps will further strengthen user trust and compliance with evolving data protection regulations.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.
GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.
No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.
Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.
Controls browser features and APIs
What to do: Implement a Permissions-Policy to restrict feature access
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements
What to do: Update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR requirements and user rights
SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.
MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery
What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks
DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.
DNSSEC is not configured for this domain
What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks
This scan found 9 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention cloud.microsoft, from OffSeq Breach.
16 subdomains affected
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for cloud.microsoft.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with cloud.microsoft. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review cloud.microsoft.