Skip to main content

Security report for mail.com

Free email accounts with mail.com | Log in here or register today · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

84/100

Risk levelLow

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

mail.com operates as a webmail service provider offering email hosting and access services to a broad audience. The website content analyzed is primarily a consent management page, indicating a focus on privacy compliance mechanisms, although no explicit privacy policy or terms of service were found on this page. The business appears to be established with a large user base, leveraging DNS infrastructure managed by GMX DNS servers and employing standard email security protocols such as SPF and DMARC with a quarantine policy. From a technical perspective, the website uses JavaScript-based consent management scripts and iframe sandboxing to handle cookie consent. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is critically lacking, with no valid certificate and no enabled TLS protocols, which severely impacts secure communications. DNSSEC is not enabled, and CAA records are malformed, indicating gaps in DNS security hardening. Performance is slow with a high page load time and moderate resource usage. Security posture shows strengths in email authentication (SPF, DMARC) and HSTS enforcement with preload, but major weaknesses in SSL/TLS deployment and DNS security. No security policy or incident response contacts are published, limiting transparency and readiness. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate trustworthiness but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS and DNS security to protect user data and maintain compliance. Strategic recommendations include immediate renewal and proper configuration of SSL certificates, enabling modern TLS protocols, fixing DNS CAA records, enabling DNSSEC, and publishing comprehensive privacy and security policies. Enhancing these areas will improve user trust, compliance posture, and reduce risk exposure.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

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.

Priority findings

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching mail.com

This scan found 11 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.

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
97
Security headers
90
Email security
83
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
84

Not counted

  • 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.

Business context

Business profile

mail.com is positioned as a significant player in the webmail service market, targeting general internet users seeking reliable email services. The business model likely includes free email offerings supplemented by premium services or advertising revenue. The company benefits from established DNS infrastructure and email authentication standards, which support deliverability and security. However, the lack of visible privacy and security policies on the consent page suggests potential gaps in regulatory compliance communication. The absence of contact information and social media presence on this page limits direct customer engagement. Growth opportunities may lie in improving transparency, security posture, and expanding service offerings. Partnerships or parent company relationships are not evident from the data provided.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate with foundational email security protocols (SPF, DMARC) and HSTS enabled. Critical vulnerabilities include an invalid or missing SSL certificate, absence of TLS protocol support, lack of DNSSEC, and malformed CAA records. These issues expose the site to risks such as man-in-the-middle attacks, DNS spoofing, and degraded user trust. Compliance gaps exist due to missing privacy and security policies and no incident response contact information. Data protection practices are partially implemented but require enhancement in transport security and DNS integrity. Incident response readiness cannot be assessed due to lack of published information. Overall, the security culture appears to prioritize email security but neglects web security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Renew and properly configure SSL/TLS certificates to enable secure HTTPS connections
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable insecure protocols
  3. Correct and implement valid CAA DNS records
  4. Enable DNSSEC to improve DNS security
  5. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and security policies including incident response contacts
Technical notes

Notes

The website infrastructure relies on DNS servers managed by GMX with valid MX and NS records but lacks DNSSEC protection. The SSL/TLS configuration is critically deficient with no valid certificate and no enabled TLS protocols, resulting in insecure connections. The site uses JavaScript-based consent management and iframe sandboxing for cookie consent, indicating some level of privacy compliance effort. Performance is slow with a page load time exceeding 5 seconds and moderate resource usage. No CMS or major frameworks are detected. The technical debt includes outdated or missing SSL configuration, malformed DNS CAA records, and lack of DNSSEC, which pose risks to business operations and user trust. Modernization opportunities include upgrading SSL/TLS, improving DNS security, and optimizing performance.
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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with mail.com. 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 mail.com.

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.