Is www.process.be Safe? Security Score 59/100 | CyStack
www.process.be
the domain name process.be is for sale
the domain name process.be is for sale. make an offer or buy it now at a set price.
Industry
–
Origin
–
Global rank
–
Rank in
–
Updated at
F59/100
Security level
Low
Data confidence
Medium
Scope checked
81.5%
The higher the score, the more externally observable protections the system has recorded. This page does not certify that the website is reputable, legitimate, or completely free of vulnerabilities.
Is the website “www.process.be” safe?
As of September 21, 2026 at 04:10, www.process.be has a security score of 59/100 (grade F: “Low”). CyStack’s automated assessment recorded 5 issues to review after completing 81.5% of applicable checks. The website owner should address “HTTPS/TLS endpoint reachability” first, then review the remaining items in order of impact.
Does www.process.be show known scam, phishing, or malware signals?
At assessment time, CyStack did not find www.process.be or related infrastructure on any scam, phishing, or malware warning list after checking 5 online reputation sources. This result reflects external observations; it does not guarantee absolute safety or verify the organization’s legal status or reputation.
Compare the security level of each assessed category at a glance.
Network attack surface100/100 · Good90.9% of this category was checked
Web security0/100 · Not enough data0% of this category was checked
Frequently asked questions
What affects the security of www.process.be?
A valid SSL certificate still does not prove that www.process.be is safe, legitimate, or free of scam signals. For a more complete assessment, this report also checks phishing and malware, exposed email records, IPs and open ports, subdomains, technologies, and CVEs that may apply to observed versions.
Does www.process.be use HTTPS, and is its SSL certificate valid?
HTTPS on www.process.be could not be reached during this assessment, so its SSL certificate and transport encryption could not be evaluated.
Data compiled from CyStack cybersecurity monitoring systems
CyStack compiles scan results from its internal cybersecurity monitoring systems, including CyStack VulnScan and CyStack Threat Intelligence, together with publicly available Internet data. The assessment only observes and analyzes information already available; it does not attempt unauthorized access, test passwords, send exploit code, or change or disrupt the assessed system.
These 3 failed checks or warnings have the greatest impact on the result for www.process.be.
HTTPS/TLS endpoint reachabilityA TLS connection could not be established on the tested HTTPS endpoint (port 443).Critical
Why it matters
This check only confirms whether a TLS handshake can be established with at least one tested resolved endpoint on the HTTPS port. Certificate trust, hostname identity, validity, chain, protocol, and cryptographic strength are evaluated separately.
What to do
Provide the entire website over HTTPS using a certificate trusted by common browsers.
Diagnostic information
The scanner could not complete a TLS handshake with the HTTPS endpoint during this assessment.
Evidence and check scope
HTTPS port tested:
443
Connection established:
No
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
IPs with conclusive connection failure:
75.2.126.67
This is the port on which the scanner attempted a TLS connection. The port number alone does not prove that the port is open or that HTTPS works.
Email spoofing protection (DMARC)No DMARC record was found for the registrable email domain.High
Why it matters
DMARC lets the domain owner tell receiving services what to do when the visible From address is not verified by SPF or DKIM. Without DMARC, attackers have more opportunity to impersonate the domain in phishing email.
What to do
Publish a DMARC record at _dmarc, begin by collecting reports, and confirm that legitimate senders pass before applying a blocking policy.
Email receiving configurationNo explicit MX or sole Null MX record was found; SMTP senders may fall back to the domain's A/AAAA address, so the email-receiving intent is ambiguous.Low
Why it matters
This check asks whether the domain clearly declares email-receiving intent through one or more explicit MX routes or a sole Null MX. MX target validity and reachability are evaluated separately by the mail-route health check.
What to do
Transport encryption0/100 · High risk100% of this category was checked
Threat reputation100/100 · Good100% of this category was checked
Vulnerability and technology risk0/100 · Not enough data0% of this category was checked
Email authentication66.7/100 · Review100% of this category was checked
Data exposure100/100 · Good100% of this category was checked
Domain and DNS hygiene87.5/100 · Good50% of this category was checked
Items to fix or review
This list contains only failed checks and warnings. Checks without enough evidence are grouped separately below.
HTTPS/TLS endpoint reachabilityHTTPS and encryptionFailed
Check result
A TLS connection could not be established on the tested HTTPS endpoint (port 443).
Why it matters
This check only confirms whether a TLS handshake can be established with at least one tested resolved endpoint on the HTTPS port. Certificate trust, hostname identity, validity, chain, protocol, and cryptographic strength are evaluated separately.
What to do
Provide the entire website over HTTPS using a certificate trusted by common browsers.
Diagnostic information
The scanner could not complete a TLS handshake with the HTTPS endpoint during this assessment.
Evidence and check scope
HTTPS port tested:
443
Connection established:
No
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
IPs with conclusive connection failure:
75.2.126.67
This is the port on which the scanner attempted a TLS connection. The port number alone does not prove that the port is open or that HTTPS works.
No DMARC record was found for the registrable email domain.
Why it matters
DMARC lets the domain owner tell receiving services what to do when the visible From address is not verified by SPF or DKIM. Without DMARC, attackers have more opportunity to impersonate the domain in phishing email.
No explicit MX or sole Null MX record was found; SMTP senders may fall back to the domain's A/AAAA address, so the email-receiving intent is ambiguous.
Why it matters
Allowed certificate issuers (CAA)Domain and DNSNeeds review
Check result
No CAA issue or issuewild rule was found to restrict certificate issuers.
Why it matters
Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records state which certificate providers may issue certificates for the domain. This reduces the chance of an unintended provider issuing one.
DNS response protection (DNSSEC)Domain and DNSNeeds review
Check result
No DNSSEC DS delegation was found.
Why it matters
DNSSEC adds digital signatures so resolvers can detect forged DNS answers. This quick check looks for a DS record at the parent domain; a passing result confirms that delegation signal, but it does not validate the complete signature chain.
Inconclusive checks (5)These checks lack reliable evidence. They are neither confirmed issues nor passed checks.
Known-exploited status is inconclusive because the reference data or CVE matching coverage was incomplete.
Why it matters
Comparing applicable CVEs with CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog distinguishes theoretical risk from vulnerabilities exploited in real attacks. The product, version, and relevant CVE must be identified correctly before reaching that conclusion.
What to do next
Finish verifying the product and version, then compare the relevant CVEs with the KEV catalog again. Treat a KEV item as urgent only after confirming that the CVE actually applies to the system.
Potential CVEs for observed versionsSoftware vulnerabilitiesUnknown
Check result
Observed 1 versioned product(s), but none had a safe exact CPE mapping.
Why it matters
This check compares an observed product only when a reliable version and exact CPE identity are available, using applicability records from the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Any returned match is a lead, not confirmation: the installed software may include vendor fixes or differ from the version visible on the Internet.
Evidence and check scope
Data source:
nvd
Source link:
https://nvd.nist.gov/
Software items found:
1
Domain registration expiryDomain and DNSUnknown
Check result
The assessment could not determine whether the domain registration is valid beyond the near-term renewal threshold.
Why it matters
An expired domain stops directing users to the organization's services and may eventually become available to someone else. A domain close to expiry leaves little time to recover from payment or account problems.
Diagnostic information
The domain-registration source did not return enough reliable evidence.
Domain registration statusDomain and DNSUnknown
Check result
The assessment could not determine whether the registration status contains no hold, redemption, or pending-deletion signal recognized by this check.
Why it matters
Registrar or registry restrictions such as hold, redemption, or pending deletion can disable the domain. If they are not resolved, the organization may lose control of its website and email identity.
Diagnostic information
The domain-registration source did not return enough reliable evidence.
CyStack confirmed at least 1 active DNS subdomains of process.be. Some discovery checks were incomplete, so this is a minimum rather than a final total.
Why it matters
Names containing admin, development, staging, VPN, database, or monitoring terms may point attackers toward valuable systems. A name alone does not prove exposure, but it identifies a surface that should be reviewed.
Diagnostic information
Subdomain discovery did not complete, so the current list may be incomplete.
Evidence and check scope
Data available:
Yes
Complete:
No
Informational checks (4)These neutral observations add context and are counted as neither passed checks nor confirmed issues.
Blacklist check coverageIP reputationInformation
Check result
5 providers were definitive and 1 were inconclusive.
Why it matters
This shows how many independent blacklist services returned a clear result. A service that was unavailable was not checked successfully and must not be treated as a clean result.
Evidence and check scope
IPv4 addresses checked:
1
Blocklists reporting an issue:
0
Blocklists with no match:
5
Blocklists unavailable:
1
Blocklists checked conclusively:
5
Confirmed blocklist matches:
No
Technologies visible from the InternetSoftware vulnerabilitiesInformation
Check result
Public signals from the website and its open services revealed 3 technology item(s).
Why it matters
Response headers, page content, and other public clues suggest which technologies the service uses. These observations help explain the attack surface, but they can be incomplete or mistaken and do not by themselves confirm a vulnerability.
Evidence and check scope
Technologies found:
3
Detection method:
Website and exposed-service analysis
Technologies from the homepage response:
2
Passive WAF, CDN, or edge signalsSoftware vulnerabilitiesInformation
Check result
Passive response signals identified one or more WAF, CDN, or edge products; enforcement was not tested.
Why it matters
This check looks for bounded passive signals of a Web Application Firewall (WAF), CDN, or other edge service. A match suggests presence but does not test enforcement, and no match does not prove absence.
Observed 1 versioned product(s); 0 had exact CPE mappings and 0 completed lookup(s).
Why it matters
This shows how many detected products had reliable version information and an exact CPE identity, allowing them to be checked against CVE applicability data. A product that could not be checked must not be treated as free of known vulnerabilities.
Evidence and check scope
Complete:
Yes
Software items found:
1
Products ready for matching:
0
Passed or not applicable (38)
Public DNS recordsDomain and DNS
Check result
The target resolved to 1 public IP address(es).
Why it matters
Public DNS connects the domain to its Internet addresses. Missing or incorrect records can make the service unreachable or send traffic to the wrong system.
Evidence and check scope
IP addresses:
75.2.126.67
Password form transport securityWebsite protectionNot applicable
Check result
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
If either a password page or the address receiving its form uses HTTP, someone observing the network may read or change the submitted password.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Scan boundary:
Redirected outside the assessed domain
Source response status:
301
Host requested:
www.process.be
Host observed:
www.process.be
Certificate matches the websiteHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
This certificate check was not run because no TLS connection was established.
Why it matters
The certificate must list the exact hostname visitors requested in its Subject Alternative Names (SAN). A mismatch produces browser warnings because the certificate may belong to a different service.
Evidence and check scope
Required condition:
TLS connection
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
Browser-trusted certificateHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
This certificate check was not run because no TLS connection was established.
Why it matters
Browsers trust a website only when its certificate can be traced to a recognized certificate provider. An untrusted certificate causes warnings and prevents visitors from reliably confirming the website's identity.
Evidence and check scope
Required condition:
TLS connection
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
Public management service exposurePublic infrastructure
Check result
No public management service was found on the scanned TCP port set.
Why it matters
Remote administration services such as RDP, VNC, Docker, Kubernetes, and management consoles are high-value targets. Public exposure allows anyone on the Internet to attempt passwords or exploit an unpatched service.
Evidence and check scope
Complete:
Yes
Ports checked:
21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 80, 110, 111, 139, 143… and 48 more
Services selected for identification:
2
Services identified:
1
Database or cache exposed to the InternetPublic infrastructure
Check result
No public datastore service was found on the scanned TCP port set.
Why it matters
Databases and caches often contain sensitive information and are normally used only by internal applications. Direct Internet access makes password attacks and configuration mistakes much more likely to become a data breach.
Evidence and check scope
Complete:
Yes
Ports checked:
21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 80, 110, 111, 139, 143… and 48 more
Services selected for identification:
2
Services identified:
1
File-sharing service exposed to the InternetPublic infrastructure
Check result
No public file-sharing service was found on the scanned TCP port set.
Why it matters
Services such as SMB, NFS, and rsync can reveal or modify shared files and have a history of serious vulnerabilities. They rarely need to accept connections directly from the public Internet.
Evidence and check scope
Complete:
Yes
Ports checked:
21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 80, 110, 111, 139, 143… and 48 more
Services selected for identification:
2
Services identified:
1
Unencrypted legacy servicePublic infrastructure
Check result
No public legacy cleartext service was found on the scanned TCP port set.
Why it matters
Older services such as Telnet, FTP, and unencrypted mail or directory protocols can send passwords and data in readable form. Anyone able to observe the network path may capture them.
Evidence and check scope
Complete:
Yes
Ports checked:
21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 80, 110, 111, 139, 143… and 48 more
Services selected for identification:
2
Services identified:
1
Service identification complete:
DNS abuse-list reputationIP reputation
Check result
No independent abuse-list consensus was found across 5 definitive providers.
Why it matters
Security and email providers maintain DNS-based blacklists of IP addresses associated with spam, malware, or compromised systems. Several current, independent listings are a strong reason to investigate, although a shared IP can sometimes affect unrelated customers.
Evidence and check scope
IPv4 addresses checked:
1
Blocklists reporting an issue:
0
Blocklists with no match:
5
Blocklists unavailable:
1
Blocklists checked conclusively:
Session cookies protected from scripts (HttpOnly)Website protectionNot applicable
Check result
The inspected root response did not set any cookies, so this cookie attribute was not applicable.
Why it matters
HttpOnly prevents browser scripts from directly reading a cookie. It does not fix script injection, but it makes theft of session and authentication cookies more difficult.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Total:
0
Response inspected:
Homepage response
Cookies sent only over HTTPS (Secure)Website protectionNot applicable
Check result
The inspected root response did not set any cookies, so this cookie attribute was not applicable.
Why it matters
The Secure attribute prevents a browser from sending a cookie over unencrypted HTTP. This bounded check scores cookies whose names look session- or authentication-related; other cookies are reported as context but do not by themselves prove that sensitive data is exposed.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) decides which websites may read responses from this service in a visitor's browser. Rules that trust arbitrary origins, especially with login cookies, can expose private data to another website.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
Content Security Policy (CSP) limits where scripts, styles, frames, and other browser content may come from. A strong policy reduces the impact if an attacker manages to inject content into a page.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Scan boundary:
Redirected outside the assessed domain
Source response status:
301
Certificate expiry and validityHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
This certificate check was not run because no TLS connection was established.
Why it matters
A certificate works only between its start and expiry dates. An expired, not-yet-valid, or soon-to-expire certificate can trigger browser warnings and interrupt access to the website or API.
Evidence and check scope
Required condition:
TLS connection
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
Certificate key and signature strengthHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
This certificate check was not run because no TLS connection was established.
Why it matters
The certificate's public key and signature algorithm protect it from forgery. Keys that are too short or signatures based on obsolete algorithms provide less protection against modern attacks.
Evidence and check scope
Required condition:
TLS connection
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
Supported TLS versionsHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
This certificate check was not run because no TLS connection was established.
Why it matters
TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 use outdated security designs and are no longer accepted by modern standards. Leaving them enabled allows older, weaker connection methods.
DMARC enforcement was not evaluated because no structurally usable DMARC policy was available.
Why it matters
A policy of quarantine or reject tells receiving services to move suspicious mail to spam or refuse it. A monitoring-only policy (p=none) records the problem but does not ask receivers to stop spoofed mail.
DMARC structure was not evaluated because no DMARC record was available.
Why it matters
This bounded check validates the core structure and required tags of the DMARC record found by the domain-tree lookup. It does not verify delivery or authorization of every external reporting destination.
The final SPF rule tells receiving services how confidently they should reject unlisted senders. A permissive result allows more spoofed mail to appear legitimate than a hard fail (-all).
An SPF record was found for the registrable email domain.
Why it matters
Sender Policy Framework (SPF) lists the systems allowed to send email for the domain. Without it, receiving services have less evidence to distinguish legitimate mail from spoofed mail.
This bounded check validates the published SPF record's basic structure, duplicate-record rule, and directly declared DNS-lookup terms. It does not recursively expand every include or redirect, so a pass is not a complete SPF evaluation.
No matching credential exposure records were found in the currently indexed intelligence data. This does not prove that no exposure exists.
Why it matters
Infostealer intelligence may contain credentials associated with the domain, but it does not prove that an account is current, valid, or still exposed.
Evidence and check scope
How exposed email records are matched:
Only email addresses whose domain exactly matches this website
The inspected root response did not set any cookies, so this cookie attribute was not applicable.
Why it matters
SameSite limits when a browser includes cookies in requests started by another website. This helps prevent another site from silently making an authenticated request on a user's behalf.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Total:
0
Response inspected:
Homepage response
Protection from deceptive framing (clickjacking)Website protectionNot applicable
Check result
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
Another website can place this page inside a hidden or misleading frame and trick a user into clicking an unintended action. Frame restrictions tell browsers which sites, if any, may embed the page.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Scan boundary:
Redirected outside the assessed domain
Source response status:
301
Insecure content on an HTTPS pageWebsite protectionNot applicable
Check result
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
An HTTPS page can still load scripts, frames, styles, or forms over unencrypted HTTP. An attacker on the network may alter that content and compromise the otherwise secure page.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
Without the nosniff setting, a browser may guess a file's type and treat harmless-looking content as executable code. This can turn an incorrect Content-Type into a security issue.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Header present:
No
Scan boundary:
Redirected outside the assessed domain
Complete certificate chainHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
This certificate check was not run because no TLS connection was established.
Why it matters
The server must provide the intermediate certificates that connect its website certificate to a trusted provider. If any are missing, some browsers, mobile devices, or API clients may reject the connection.
Evidence and check scope
Required condition:
TLS connection
Host requested:
www.process.be
Resolved IPs tested:
75.2.126.67
HSTS availabilityHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
HSTS was not assessed because the inspected root response was not delivered over HTTPS.
Why it matters
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) tells a browser to use HTTPS automatically on future visits. This reduces the chance that a visitor is downgraded to an unencrypted connection.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Required condition:
HTTPS response
Response inspected:
Homepage response
Automatic redirect to HTTPSHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
The HTTP root redirects outside scan scope before HTTPS enforcement within the target domain can be verified.
Why it matters
Visitors may enter an address beginning with HTTP or follow an old link. Redirecting them immediately to HTTPS prevents the rest of the visit from continuing over an unencrypted connection.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Website reachable:
Yes
Redirects followed:
1
Public directory listingSoftware vulnerabilitiesNot applicable
Check result
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
When a web server automatically lists a directory, visitors may discover files that were never linked publicly, including backups, logs, or deployment artifacts.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Scan boundary:
Redirected outside the assessed domain
Source response status:
301
Email routing records (MX)Domain and DNSNot applicable
Check result
No explicit MX target was published, so there was no declared mail route to validate.
Why it matters
MX records direct incoming email to the correct mail servers. Broken records can stop delivery, while a Null MX clearly tells senders that the domain does not receive email.
Evidence and check scope
Does not receive email:
No
Policy domain:
process.be
Unnecessary public servicesPublic infrastructure
Check result
No public unexpected service was found on the scanned TCP port set.
Why it matters
Every open service can be discovered and attacked and must be configured, monitored, and patched. Services without a clear public purpose add risk without providing business value.
Evidence and check scope
Complete:
Yes
Ports checked:
21, 22, 23, 25, 53, 80, 110, 111, 139, 143… and 48 more
Services selected for identification:
2
Services identified:
1
Service identification complete:
Authoritative DNS server countDomain and DNS
Check result
Found 3 authoritative name server(s).
Why it matters
This check counts the authoritative name-server hostnames published for the domain. Fewer than two creates an obvious single-server dependency; two or more meets the count baseline but does not prove that the servers use independent networks or remain available during an outage.
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
Permissions-Policy can further restrict browser features such as the camera, microphone, and location for this page and embedded content. Each feature already has a browser-defined default allowlist, so an absent header does not mean that every feature is unrestricted.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
When a visitor follows a link, the browser may send information about the previous URL to the destination. Modern browsers default to strict-origin-when-cross-origin when no header is sent, so an absent header is a hardening gap rather than proof that a full sensitive URL was exposed.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
Evidence and check scope
Scan boundary:
Redirected outside the assessed domain
Source response status:
HSTS protection periodHTTPS and encryptionNot applicable
Check result
HSTS policy strength was not assessed because no effective HSTS policy was available on the inspected root response.
Why it matters
The max-age value controls how long browsers remember to use HTTPS. A very short period provides limited protection, while includeSubDomains also covers every subdomain and can break one that does not support HTTPS.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
The destination is outside this scan's domain boundary, so this control was not assessed from the redirect response.
Why it matters
Exact web server or framework versions help attackers quickly look for known weaknesses that may apply. Hiding a version is not a substitute for patching, but unnecessary disclosure gives away useful targeting information.
Scope of this check
This check only evaluates the homepage response and content that the scanner could reach. Other pages and sign-in flows may use different settings.
DMARC reporting was not evaluated because no structurally usable DMARC policy was available.
Why it matters
This check looks for at least one syntactically usable mailto destination in rua; a passing result confirms that publication. It does not verify authorization for an external destination or prove that reports can actually be delivered and monitored.
Have @process.be email addresses appeared in exposed data or information-stealer (infostealer) logs?
No record associated with an @process.be email address was found in the currently available data. This does not rule out incidents that have not been observed.
What technologies does www.process.be use, and which CVEs (security vulnerabilities) may apply?
The assessment identified 3 technologies on www.process.be, including 1 with a version, but CVE matching did not complete for every version. An empty result should not be treated as proof that no vulnerability exists.
Which public IPs, services, and ports does www.process.be expose?
The assessment observed 1 public IPs and 2 open ports for www.process.be. An open port is not the same as a vulnerability, but the website owner should keep every public service updated and appropriately restrict access.
How many subdomains of process.be have been discovered?
The assessment observed 1+ public subdomains of process.be. This list can reveal additional entry points such as APIs, administration systems, or test environments, but it does not mean that every subdomain is risky.
Publish MX records when the domain receives email, or publish a sole Null MX when it intentionally accepts no email; then resolve any target-health finding separately.
Evidence and check scope
Does not receive email:
No
Policy domain:
process.be
What to do
Publish a DMARC record at _dmarc, begin by collecting reports, and confirm that legitimate senders pass before applying a blocking policy.
This check asks whether the domain clearly declares email-receiving intent through one or more explicit MX routes or a sole Null MX. MX target validity and reachability are evaluated separately by the mail-route health check.
What to do
Publish MX records when the domain receives email, or publish a sole Null MX when it intentionally accepts no email; then resolve any target-health finding separately.
Evidence and check scope
Does not receive email:
No
Policy domain:
process.be
What to do
Publish CAA records that allow only the certificate providers your organization actually uses.
Matched records contain an email address whose domain exactly matches the assessed website's registrable domain. Credential records are intelligence observations, not proof that an account is still active. Estimated victim devices are infostealer infection devices associated with matched records; they are not evidence that those devices are owned or operated by the assessed organization.
Industry
Updated at 
