Skip to main content

Security report for microsoft.com

Microsoft Corporation · Technology · United States

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

92/100

Risk levelLow

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

Microsoft Corporation is a global technology leader offering a wide range of products and services including cloud computing (Azure), productivity software (Microsoft 365), operating systems (Windows), hardware (Surface, Xbox), and AI solutions (Copilot). The company targets consumers, small to large businesses, and enterprises, maintaining a dominant market position with a comprehensive portfolio. The website reflects Microsoft's enterprise-grade digital maturity, leveraging Adobe Experience Manager CMS, modern JavaScript frameworks, and robust analytics tools. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and adherence to international standards such as ISO 27001 and NIST. Privacy compliance is evident with clear GDPR-aligned policies and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-optimized for performance and accessibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
90/ 100 · Low
GDPR outside view
86/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
9of 9

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

The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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

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

  1. Security headers

    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.

    • Medium

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      No Content-Security-Policy is set, so if an attacker manages to inject a script (cross-site scripting), the browser runs it with full access to the page.

      What to do: Start with "Content-Security-Policy: object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self'; frame-ancestors 'self'" and add a script-src that lists your script origins or uses nonces. Test with a Report-Only header first.

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…
    • Medium

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Other websites can load your pages inside an invisible frame and trick visitors into clicking buttons on them (clickjacking).

      What to do: Send "Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'self'" (or X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN for older browsers).

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • Medium

      Session recording or advertising pixel loaded before consent

      Observed on the first page load as a new visitor, before any consent choice; Guard does not click the banner. The page loaded Microsoft Clarity (www.clarity.ms) while the consent banner was still waiting for an answer. Prior consent is required under ePrivacy Art. 5(3): session recording captures clicks, scrolling and form input.

      What to do: Start session recording only after the visitor accepts analytics cookies.

    • Medium

      Trackers still contacted after "Reject all"

      Guard opened the site in a separate, fresh browser profile, refused consent ("Ablehnen" button) as a visitor would, then reloaded the page. No tracking cookies were set, but session recording or an advertising pixel still sent data: Microsoft Clarity (f.clarity.ms). These services receive the visitor's IP address and behaviour despite the refusal.

      What to do: Load these tags only after consent in the consent platform or tag manager, then repeat the check: reject, reload, and confirm they no longer send requests.

Keep watching microsoft.com

This scan found 10 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
68
Email security
98
DNS health
97
Network security
100
Website hygiene
95
GDPR outside view
86
Average
92

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.
  • Accessibility: Accessibility is a separate readout from security, so it is reported but not scored. 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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention microsoft.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1,354,264
Employees
6,946
Customers
1,316,217
Third parties
31,101
Weak passwords
10%

Latest record dated 2026-10-26 · 2,878 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 microsoft.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –msft.sts.microsoft.com2026-10-26
  • –mysignins.microsoft.com2026-10-26
  • –msft.sts.microsoft.com2026-10-26
  • –msft.sts.microsoft.com2026-10-26
  • –msft.sts.microsoft.com2026-10-26

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Microsoft's market positioning as a technology giant is reinforced by its extensive product ecosystem and global reach. Revenue streams include software licenses, cloud subscriptions, hardware sales, and enterprise services. The company benefits from a strong partnership ecosystem and subsidiaries like LinkedIn and GitHub. The website's content and navigation cater to diverse customer segments, from individual consumers to large enterprises, supporting Microsoft's broad business model and growth strategy.

Security posture

Microsoft demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, multiple security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities. The presence of detailed security policies, incident response contacts, and certifications indicates a proactive approach to cybersecurity and compliance. The website avoids exposing sensitive data and uses secure forms and modern libraries. Compliance with GDPR and other regulations is clearly communicated, supporting trust and legal adherence.

Recommendations

  1. Maintain continuous monitoring and patching of web technologies and third-party libraries.
  2. Enhance transparency around data retention policies on the website.
  3. Expand incident response contact options for broader accessibility.
  4. Regularly update privacy and security policies to reflect evolving regulations.
  5. Invest in ongoing accessibility improvements to meet all user needs.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Microsoft Corporation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Microsoft Corporation
Description
Microsoft bietet Produkte und Dienste für Privat- und Geschäftskunden, darunter Microsoft 365, Azure, Windows, Surface, Xbox und KI-Lösungen.
Key services
Cloud Computing (Azure), Produktivitätssoftware (Microsoft 365), Betriebssysteme (Windows), Hardware (Surface, Xbox), KI-Lösungen (Copilot)
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Adobe Helix RUM, Clarity Analytics, React (likely), Web Components
Frameworks
Adobe Experience Manager (AEM), Microsoft Universal Header Framework (UHF)
Platforms
Microsoft Azure Hosting
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of modern JavaScript libraries
  • Security and privacy policies clearly linked

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Adobe Helix RUM, Bing Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Impact Radius
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Bing Ads, Clicktale
Marketing tools
Microsoft Clarity, Adobe Helix RUM
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is comprehensive, professional, and well-structured.
  3. Strong security and privacy policies are in place and clearly linked.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. Clear business and product information targeting a broad audience.
  6. No suspicious or malicious indicators found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a robust technical infrastructure using Adobe Experience Manager CMS and Microsoft Azure hosting. It employs modern JavaScript frameworks and web components, ensuring fast load times and excellent mobile responsiveness. SEO and accessibility best practices are well implemented. The technical stack supports scalability and integration with analytics and marketing tools, reflecting a high level of digital maturity and technical sophistication.
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. 73/100 −3Medium24 findingsView report
  2. 76/100 −3Low24 findingsView report
  3. 79/100 +1Low23 findingsView report
  4. 78/100Low24 findingsView report
  5. 75/100Medium17 findings · partial scanView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with microsoft.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 microsoft.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.