# CrushFTP Security Rating, Vendor Risk Report, and Data Breaches > This is a plain-markdown summary of [https://www.upguard.com/security-report/crushftp](https://www.upguard.com/security-report/crushftp), generated for AI agents and LLMs. Security scores and check results reflect UpGuard's independent analysis and are kept in sync with the source page. Visit the source URL for the full interactive report. CrushFTP develops file transfer server software that supports multiple protocols including FTP, SFTP, HTTP, and WebDAV for secure file sharing and management. The software features web-based administration, encryption capabilities, user authentication options, and integration with cloud storage services. ## Overview - Domain: crushftp.com - Grade: D (Poor) - Score: 388 / 950 - Last scan: August 17, 2026 - Industry: Tech - Website: https://www.crushftp.com - Employees: 5 - Location: Stateline, NV, United States ## Vendor risk summary This vendor risk report is based on UpGuard's continuous monitoring of CrushFTP's security posture using open-source, commercial, and proprietary threat intelligence feeds. The results are summarized into a security rating based on the analysis of hundreds of individual checks across five risk categories: website security, email security, phishing & malware, brand & reputation risk, and network security. ## Security categories ### Website Security - Fail — Secure cookies not used - When secure cookies are not used, there is an increased risk of third parties intercepting information contained in these cookies. The website configuration should be changed so that all 'Set-Cookie' headers include 'secure'. - Fail — Server information header exposed - Exposing information about the server version increases the ability of attackers to exploit certain vulnerabilities. The website configuration should be changed to prevent version information being revealed in the 'server' header. - Fail — X-Frame-Options is not deny or sameorigin - Browsers may display this website's content in frames. This can lead to clickjacking attacks. - Fail — CSP implemented unsafely - The Content Security Policy may not restrict sources appropriately, or may contain 'unsafe-inline' without the use of a nonce or hash. This increases the risk of XSS attacks. - Fail — CSP is not implemented - No valid Content Security Policy is implemented. This increases the risk of XSS and clickjacking attacks. - Fail — HttpOnly cookies not used - When HttpOnly cookies are not used, the cookies can be accessed on the client, which enables certain type of client-side attacks. The website configuration should be changed to enforce HttpOnly cookies. - Fail — CSP contains unsafe-eval - The Content Security Policy is implemented with unsafe-eval, reducing protection against XSS attacks. - Fail — X-Content-Type-Options is not nosniff - Browsers may interpret files as a different MIME type than what is specified in the Content-Type HTTP header. This can lead to MIME confusion attacks. - Pass — X-Powered-By header not exposed - Information about specific technology used on the server is obscured. - Pass — CSP implemented without insecure active sources - The Content Security Policy does not allow any insecure active sources. - Pass — Referrer policy is not unsafe-url - The website's Referrer Policy is not configured to allow unsafe information to be sent in the referrer header. - Pass — ASP.NET version header not exposing specific ASP.net version - Ensuring the ASP.NET version header is not exposing a specific version makes it harder for attackers to exploit certain vulnerabilities. - Pass — ASP.NET version header not exposed - Ensuring the ASP.NET version header is not exposed makes it harder for attackers to exploit certain vulnerabilities. - Pass — CSP implemented without insecure passive sources - The Content Security Policy does not allow any insecure passive (img/media) sources. - Pass — No unmaintained page detected - The page appears to be maintained. ### Email - Pass — DMARC policy is not p=none - DMARC reject policy provides the most effective protection against fraudulent emails being sent from a domain. - Pass — DMARC policy exists - DMARC protects against fraudulent emails being sent from a domain. - Pass — SPF syntax correct - Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record passes basic syntax checks. - Pass — DMARC policy percentage is default - DMARC policy percentage is set to default 100%, ensuring all mail is covered by the policy. - Pass — Strict SPF filtering - not using ~all - Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record strictly enforces specific domains allowed to send email on its behalf. - Pass — SPF ptr mechanism not used - Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record does not include the ptr mechanism. ### Network - Fail — 'FTP' port open - The 'FTP' service is running and exposed to the internet. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. - Fail — 'SSH' port open - The 'SSH' service is running and exposed to the internet. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. - Fail — Port 2121 is open and listening - Port 2121 is open and an unidentified service was detected listening on this port. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. - Fail — Port 990 is open and listening - Port 990 is open and an unidentified service was detected listening on this port. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. - Fail — 'HTTP' port open - The 'HTTP' service is running and exposed to the internet. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. - Fail — 'MDNS' port open - The 'MDNS' service is running and exposed to the internet. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. - Fail — Port 8081 is open - Port 8081 is open on this server, however no service was detected listening on this port. The configuration of the server should be reviewed and unnecessary ports closed. ### DNS - Fail — DNSSEC not enabled - DNSSEC records prevent third parties from forging the records that guarantee a domain's identity. DNSSEC should be configured for this domain. - Fail — CAA not enabled - The domain does not contain a valid Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) record. A CAA record indicates which Certificate Authorities (CAs) are authorized to issue certificates for a domain. - Pass — No unregistered MX records detected - No unregistered MX records that could lead to receiving mail on behalf of the target organization were detected. - Pass — Domain has not expired - Domain has not expired. - Pass — No subdomain takeover vulnerability detected - No dangling DNS records that could lead to subdomain takeover were detected. - Pass — Domain does not expire soon - Domain does not expire within 30 days. ### Encryption - Fail — SSL not available - SSL is the standard encryption method for browsing websites. Enabling SSL requires installing an SSL certificate on the site. - Fail — SSL expired - SSL certificate has expired. The certificate will need to be renewed for connections to your domain to be trusted. - Fail — HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) not enforced - Without HSTS enforced, people browsing this site are more susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks. The server should be configured to support HSTS. - Fail — HTTPS redirect not supported - HTTPS is the standard protocol for secure communication on the internet. All redirects should be performed over HTTPS. - Fail — Domain was not found on the HSTS preload list - The domain was not found on the HSTS preload list. Users who visit the website for the first time will be vulnerable to MITM attacks. The requirements for inclusion on the preload list are specified by hstspreload.org. - Fail — HSTS header does not contain includeSubDomains - The HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) header does not contain the includeSubDomains directive. This directive instructs the browser to also enforce the HSTS policy over subdomains of this domain. - Fail — Weak cipher suites supported in TLS 1.2 - Weak cipher suites can potentially be broken by a well resourced attacker, and should not be supported by the server unless very old devices or browsers must be supported. - Pass — Certificate not found on our revoked certificate list - The site's certificate chain was checked against our list of revoked certificates. - Pass — HTTP requests are redirected to HTTPS - All HTTP requests are redirected to HTTPS. - Pass — Hostname matches SSL certificate - The site's hostname matches the SSL certificate. - Pass — Trusted SSL certificate - The certificate presented by this domain was issued by a trusted certificate authority. - Pass — No insecure SSL/TLS versions available - No insecure SSL/TLS versions are available for this site. - Pass — SSL certificate chain present in server response - A complete SSL certificate chain was presented by the server for this domain. - Pass — SSL chain certificates do not expire within 20 days - SSL intermediate and root certificates do not expire within 20 days. - Pass — SSL expiration period shorter than 398 days - The SSL certificate presented by the server has an expiration period shorter than 398 days. - Pass — SSL has more than 20% of its valid period remaining - SSL certificate does not expire in less than 20% of its total valid period. - Pass — Strong SSL algorithm - Industry standard SHA-256 encryption in use. - Pass — Strong Diffie-Hellman prime used in key exchange - TLS connections to the site use a strong Diffie-Hellman prime during key exchange. - Pass — Strong public certificate key length - The site's public certificate provides at least 112 bits of security strength. ### Data leakage - Pass — No open cloud storage service detected - No cloud storage service configured to allow anonymous file listing was detected. - Pass — Domain index is not a listable directory - The domain index is not a listable directory. ### IP/Domain Reputation - Pass — Not a suspected malware provider - This website does not appear to contain malicious code. - Pass — No reports of botnet activity in the last 30 days - This IP/domain has not been reported as a source of botnet activity in the last 30 days. - Pass — No reports of brute force login attempts in the last 30 days - This IP/domain did not appear on any list of IPs and domains known to perform brute force login attempts in the last 30 days. - Pass — No reports of malware distribution in the last 30 days - This IP/domain has been reported for distributing malware in the last 30 days. - Pass — No reports of unsolicited scanning in the last 30 days - This IP/domain has not been reported for performing unsolicited scanning in the last 30 days. - Pass — Not suspected of unwanted software - This website does not appear to be attempting to install unwanted software. - Pass — Not a suspected phishing page - This site does not appear to be a forgery or imitation of another website. - Pass — No reports of phishing activity in the last 30 days - This IP/domain has not been reported as a phishing site in the last 30 days. - Pass — No reports of botnet activity in the last 90 days - This IP/domain has not been reported as a source of botnet activity in the last 90 days. - Pass — No reports of brute force login attempts in the last 90 days - This IP/domain did not appear on any list of IPs and domains known to perform brute force login attempts in the last 90 days. - Pass — No reports of malware distribution in the last 90 days - This IP/domain has been reported for distributing malware in the last 90 days. - Pass — No reports of unsolicited scanning in the last 90 days - This IP/domain has not been reported for performing unsolicited scanning in the last 90 days. - Pass — No reports of phishing activity in the last 90 days - This IP/domain has not been reported as a phishing site in the last 90 days. ### Vulnerability Management - Fail — End-of-life version of OpenSSL detected - The detected version of OpenSSL is end of life. The product will likely not receive security updates from the vendor moving forward. - Fail — Apache HTTP Server 2.4.6 has potential vulnerabilities - Apache HTTP Server 2.4.6 has vulnerabilities which might be exploitable under certain conditions. Affected domains should be checked to determine which vulnerabilities might pose a risk. - Fail — OpenSSL 1.0.2k has potential vulnerabilities - OpenSSL 1.0.2k has vulnerabilities which might be exploitable under certain conditions. Affected domains should be checked to determine which vulnerabilities might pose a risk. - Pass — Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-0160 (Heartbleed) - A bug in OpenSSL's implementation of the TLS heartbeat extension allows access to portions of memory on the targeted host e.g. cryptographic keys and passwords. - Pass — Not vulnerable to CVE-2014-3566 (POODLE) - The server does not support SSLv3, and is not vulnerable to the POODLE attack. - Pass — Not vulnerable to CVE-2015-0204 (FREAK) - The server does not offer RSA_EXPORT cipher suites, so clients are not vulnerable to the FREAK attack. - Pass — Not vulnerable to CVE-2015-4000 (Logjam) - The server is using strong Diffie-Hellman parameters and is not vulnerable to the Logjam attack. --- Full interactive report: https://www.upguard.com/security-report/crushftp Security Reports Policy: https://www.upguard.com/security-report-policy