AI News NQ Analysis

GMO Brand Security Survey: State of Email Security in Major Brands

NQ Score 100/100

AI Summary (NQ-processed)

A survey by GMO Brand Security revealed a significant gap in email security measures between global and Japanese top brands, with Japan lagging significantly in SPF and DMARC adoption. This leaves Japanese brands highly vulnerable to spoofing attacks.

AI analysis data is not yet available.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What percentage of domains owned by the Global Top 50 Brands were found to have appropriate SPF and DMARC settings according to the GMO Brand Security survey?
A: The survey reported that 23.1 percent of the domains belonging to the Global Top 50 Brands had both SPF and DMARC correctly configured, indicating an appropriate security setting.
Q: How does the appropriate SPF and DMARC configuration rate for Japan Top 50 Brands compare to that of Global Top 50 Brands in the GMO Brand Security study?
A: In the study, only 4.8 percent of Japan Top 50 Brands’ domains were appropriately configured, which is roughly four point eight times lower than the 23.1 percent rate observed for Global Top 50 Brands.
Q: How many total domains were examined in the GMO Brand Security survey targeting Interbrand Best Global and Japan Brands for 2025?
A: The survey examined a total of 7,600 domain names that are owned by the selected Global Top 50 Brands and Japan Top 50 Brands for the Interbrand Best Global Brands 2025 and Best Japan Brands 2025 rankings.
Q: Who is the President and Representative Director of GMO Brand Security, Inc., the organization that conducted the email security survey?
A: The President and Representative Director of GMO Brand Security, Inc. is Mitsuaki Nakagawa, who leads the GMO Internet Group’s brand security research and initiatives.
Q: What are the three enforcement levels defined by DMARC, and why are they considered critical for preventing email spoofing according to the article?
A: DMARC defines three levels—none for monitoring only, quarantine for isolating suspicious messages, and reject for blocking failed authentications—and these controls are critical because they direct how receiving servers treat emails that fail SPF or DKIM checks, thereby reducing the risk of brand‑spoofing attacks.