Companies
Fix what an insurer or customer will see before they see it, and give NIS2 supplier checks a documented, repeatable basis.
For companies: TrustSek for companiesGive us a domain. We collect public evidence and explain every finding. No agents, no access to your systems.
Coverage: 1 source not checkedConfidence: High
Email security · Medium severityDMARC policy is set to none
_dmarc.example.com.p=none to p=quarantine and on to p=reject.Every finding belongs to one module, so you can see exactly where the score comes from.
There is no mark out of 100. We start from a 2% chance that an average organisation has a cyber incident in a year. The score multiplies that baseline: 1.0× is the baseline, where a domain with no findings lands, and 3.0× is roughly three times as likely.
Likelihood is capped at 95%, because no model should claim certainty.
A source we could not reach is marked Not checked, never counted as a clean result. The report names exactly which evidence is missing.
A missing source adds nothing to the score. It shows up as coverage instead, right beside the number.
Reputation Not checked
The reputation source could not be reached, so it is shown as not checked.
What was tested, why it matters, the impact, and the steps to fix it. Written so the person who fixes it and the person who signs off read the same thing.
Medium severity
DMARC policy is set to none
_dmarc.example.com.p=none to p=quarantine and on to p=reject.Fix what an insurer or customer will see before they see it, and give NIS2 supplier checks a documented, repeatable basis.
For companies: TrustSek for companiesShow each client where they stand from the outside, with findings your team can act on and branded PDF reports.
For partners: TrustSek for msps and it partnersScore a prospect at quote time or look across a book in portfolio views. No questionnaire, no access needed.
For insurers: TrustSek for insurers and brokersIllustrative · example domains, not real scores.
example.com
3.4×Medium
| Supplier | Score | Band | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailer.example | 3.4× | Medium | Not checked |
| logistics.example | 1.6× | Low | Complete |
| hosting.example | 7.2× | High | Complete |
| payroll.example | 2.3× | Medium | Complete |
Portfolio, 6 domains
{
"name": "Example AB",
"primaryDomain": "example.com"
}201 Created
{
"id": "0b6f…",
"name": "Example AB",
"primaryDomain": "example.com",
"createdAt": "…",
"runId": "5c2e…"
}Outside-in evidence supports these frameworks. It does not replace an audit, and each framework page says plainly what it does not cover.
Email security · Medium severity
DMARC policy is set to none
Email security · Medium severity
SPF record has no all mechanism
A.8.9 Annex A technological controls.
ISO 27001 coverage and limitsCIS 9.5 Safeguards for internet-facing assets.
CIS Controls coverage and limitsArt. 21(2)(g) Risk-management measures under Article 21.
NIS2 coverage and limitsNot mapped for these findings. Trust services criteria.
SOC 2 coverage and limitsIllustrative · the two email findings from the example scan map to 3 of 4 frameworks.
Prefer a walkthrough? Book a demo