Is licensetom.net safe to use as a vendor?

licensetom.net scored 70/100 on LynxRadar's security posture assessment. The domain partially meets security requirements with some gaps to address. 7 checks passed, 5 warnings, 3 critical issues across 15 passive checks including TLS, DMARC, security headers, breaches, and CVEs.

What TLS version does licensetom.net use?

licensetom.net uses TLSv1.3 with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384. TLSv1.3 negotiated with TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256-bit). Strong configuration with no deprecated protocols or weak ciphers detected.

Does licensetom.net have SPF configured?

Yes. SPF record: v=spf1 +a +mx include:licensetom.net.spf.auto.dnssmarthost.net ~all

Does licensetom.net have security headers configured?

licensetom.net has 0 of 5 recommended security headers. Missing: CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy.

Has licensetom.net been involved in a data breach?

No known breaches found. No known breaches found in public disclosure databases.

Does licensetom.net have known CVE vulnerabilities?

Detected technologies: nginx. No version information exposed — CVE matching not possible (this is good practice).

Is licensetom.net's SSL certificate valid?

Yes. Strengths: Certificate valid, 67 days remaining; Issued by Let's Encrypt; 6 certificates logged in CT. Note: Wildcard certificate in use (*.domain) — covers all subdomains. Common practice; worth noting that compromise would affect all subdomains.

licensetom.net Security Report — Grade C- (70/100)

Q: Does licensetom.net have DMARC configured?

Yes. licensetom.net's DMARC policy is set to 'none'. SPF record: yes. Strengths: DMARC pct=100 — policy applies to all mail; SPF soft-fail (~all) configured; SPF DNS lookup count: 3/10 (within limit); DKIM configured (selectors: default). Issues: DMARC policy is 'none' (monitoring only, no enforcement); DMARC has no aggregate report URI (rua) — policy violations won't be reported.

Q: Does licensetom.net use HSTS?

No. Strict-Transport-Security header is missing. Connections can be downgraded to HTTP via man-in-the-middle attacks. If this domain is in the browser HSTS preload list, browsers may still enforce HTTPS — but the header should be present for full coverage.

Q: Does licensetom.net have DNSSEC enabled?

No. Strengths: 2 nameservers configured (ns2.siteground.net, ns1.siteground.net); SOA record present and MNAME consistent with NS set; 3 MX record(s) present; Zone transfers properly restricted on all nameservers; Address records present: 1 A record(s). Issues: All nameservers are from a single provider (siteground.net) — a provider outage takes down the domain; DNSSEC not configured — DNS responses can be spoofed or tampered with in transit (DNS cache poisoning).

C-

Conditional · 70/100

Shows significant security gaps that need urgent attention. Positive signals: TLS Configuration, MX Records & Mail Provider, and Known Breaches all passed. 8 action items identified, including 0 critical. The issues point to real architectural gaps, not just configuration tweaks. A focused remediation effort of 1–2 days could address all findings.

Trust Score Trend

→ No change 1 scan · Last scanned July 04, 2026

Score

100 75 50 25 0

C-

licensetom.net

70/100

Compliance & Certifications

Not yet verified

SOC 2 Type II

Audit report not on file

3rd party · AICPA

Pro subscribers only

ISO 27001

Certificate not on file

3rd party · accredited body

Pro subscribers only

GDPR

DPA not on file

Self-reported

Pro subscribers only

CCPA

Self-reported

Pro subscribers only

Incident History

None in 12 months

March 2026

ChatGPT data exposure

1 source

Resolved

Pro subscribers only

April 2023 – Feb 2026

ChatGPT data exposure

1 source

Resolved

Pro subscribers only

Security Posture

8 items need attention

7 passed

Finish setting up email authentication

DMARC / Email Security

2–4 hours

Spoofed emails can still reach your customers and partners until this is fully enforced. Email authentication for licensetom.net is partly set up, but there are gaps: your DMARC policy is set to monitor-only, so nothing actually gets blocked yet. Until it's fully in place, someone could still send a convincing fake email pretending to be you.

NIST CSFPR.AC-7

Email authentication is a required access control

How to fix this

1Change your DMARC record's policy from "none" to "quarantine" in your domain's DNS settings (check with whoever manages your website or domain registration) — this moves suspicious mail to spam instead of just watching it happen.

v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:[email protected]

2Double-check it's live: search "dmarc record checker" and enter licensetom.net.

Email authentication guide

Report unlocked.

View all 7 passed checks

TLS Configuration

MX Records & Mail Provider

Known Breaches

TLS Protocol Support

CVE Exposure

Certificate Hygiene

Subprocessors & Tech Stack

Company Signals

Claim profile →

Operational risk

Low

11 yrs operating. Well-funded

Lynxradar · Composite signal

Last funding

$40B

Series F · Mar 2025 · SoftBank-led

Crunchbase ↗

Employees

~3,000

+40% YoY growth

LinkedIn ↗

Trust Resources

Claim profile →

Trust Center

trust.licensetom.net ↗

Security page

licensetom.net/security ↗

licensetom.net/privacy ↗

DPA (Data Processing Agreement)

licensetom.net/dpa ↗

Updated recently

Subprocessors List

licensetom.net/policies/subprocessors ↗

Tech Stack Detected

Subprocessors

WooCommerce

Similar companies

Appears in

Claim profile →

SOC 2 Type II certified vendors

847 companies · Updated weekly by LynxRadar

Track

ISO 27001 certified SaaS

312 companies · Updated weekly by LynxRadar

Track

Top AI vendors by trust score

94 companies · LynxRadar ranking

Track

Enterprise-ready SaaS · Trust score A or above

203 companies · LynxRadar ranking

Track

Blocking Issues

Not enabled

Strict-Transport-Security header is missing. Connections can be downgraded to HTTP via man-in-the-middle attacks. If this domain is in the browser HSTS preload list, browsers may still enforce HTTPS — but the header should be present for full coverage.

Likelihood: ★★★☆☆

Impact: ★★★★☆

0/5 present

Missing: CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy

Likelihood: ★★★☆☆

Impact: ★★★☆☆

Fail

Strengths: 1 cookie(s) analyzed. Issues: 1/1 cookie(s) missing Secure flag (nevercache-b39818); 1/1 cookie(s) missing HttpOnly flag (nevercache-b39818); 1/1 cookie(s) missing SameSite attribute (nevercache-b39818).

Likelihood: ★★★★☆

Impact: ★★★★☆

Medium Priority

Warn

Issues: No MTA-STS configured — email in transit is vulnerable to TLS downgrade attacks; sending servers cannot verify your mail server requires TLS; No TLSRPT record (_smtp._tls) — TLS delivery failures won't be reported to the domain owner.

Likelihood: ★★☆☆☆

Impact: ★★★☆☆

Not enabled

Strengths: 2 nameservers configured (ns2.siteground.net, ns1.siteground.net); SOA record present and MNAME consistent with NS set; 3 MX record(s) present; Zone transfers properly restricted on all nameservers; Address records present: 1 A record(s). Issues: All nameservers are from a single provider (siteground.net) — a provider outage takes down the domain; DNSSEC not configured — DNS responses can be spoofed or tampered with in transit (DNS cache poisoning).

Likelihood: ★★☆☆☆

Impact: ★★★☆☆

p=none

Strengths: DMARC pct=100 — policy applies to all mail; SPF soft-fail (~all) configured; SPF DNS lookup count: 3/10 (within limit); DKIM configured (selectors: default). Issues: DMARC policy is 'none' (monitoring only, no enforcement); DMARC has no aggregate report URI (rua) — policy violations won't be reported.

Likelihood: ★★★☆☆

Impact: ★★★☆☆

Best Practice

Warn

No CAA records found in the DNS tree for this domain. Without CAA, any Certificate Authority can issue certificates for this domain. Adding CAA records restricts issuance to authorised CAs only, reducing the risk of misissued certificates.

Likelihood: ★☆☆☆☆

Impact: ★☆☆☆☆

Warn

No security.txt found. Publishing a security.txt at /.well-known/security.txt is the industry standard (RFC 9116) for vulnerability disclosure policies. Its absence may indicate a less mature security program.

Likelihood: ★☆☆☆☆

Impact: ★☆☆☆☆