--- title: "Intermodal Containers Carriers — Email Security Posture | EFROS" description: "Email-security posture of 9,463 active Intermodal Containers motor carriers. 79.5% of domains have no enforced DMARC, 8.1% use p=reject. Free, public, source-cited." canonical: https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/intermodal/ --- - [Home](https://efros.com/) - /[Research](https://efros.com/research/) - /[US Trucking Email Security Index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/) - /[By Cargo](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/) - /Intermodal Containers By Cargo / Intermodal Containers # Intermodal Containers Carriers — Email Security **79.5%** of active intermodal containers carrier domains have no enforced DMARC. That leaves this segment open to email impersonation, payment-redirect fraud, and cargo theft via phishing. Edition: 2026-Q2 Segment rank: #11 Carriers: 9,463 Domains: 8,354 By [Stefan Efros](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanefros-cyberdefense/), CEO & Founder, EFROS Updated · May 19, 2026 No enforced DMARC 79.5% national: 80.1% p=reject 8.1% national: 7.5% Microsoft 365 36.9% national: 38.1% M365 + no DMARC (carriers) 2,761 national: 92,822 MTA-STS 3.5% national: 3.3% DNSSEC 8.5% national: 6.1% Dead domains 440 of 8,354 scanned Total carriers 9,463 440 with dead domain ## Risk bands — Intermodal Containers carriers Carrier counts by risk band (composite email-security pain score). Critical = score 70+; Minimal = score <15. | Risk band | Score range | Carriers | Domains | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Critical | score 70+ | 674 | 621 | | High | score 50–69 | 2,541 | 2,447 | | Medium | score 30–49 | 4,344 | 3,570 | | Low | score 15–29 | 1,393 | 1,216 | | Minimal | score ## Intermodal Containers vs. national average No enforced DMARC 79.5% vs 80.1% national p=reject adoption 8.1% vs 7.5% national MTA-STS 3.5% vs 3.3% national DNSSEC 8.5% vs 6.1% national ## What the Intermodal Containers numbers actually mean **Segment exposure framing.** Intermodal freight crosses rail, ocean, and trucking handoffs — multiple counterparty emails per move means multiple impersonation surfaces per shipment. **DMARC posture.** The intermodal containerssegment's share of carrier domains with no enforced DMARC sits at **79.5%**, within 0.6 points of the national average. enforced p=reject DMARC adoption tracks the national pool: most domains in this segment either have no DMARC at all or are stuck at the monitor-only p=none policy. At the protective end of the distribution, 8.1% of segment domains are at p=reject, the only DMARC policy that actually instructs receivers to drop spoofed mail. **Microsoft 365 surface.** Microsoft 365 mailflow adoption tracks the national distribution closely, so the 2,761 M365 carriers in this segment with DMARC disabled represent the same "paid-for-but-switched-off" pattern that drives the national headline. That share is **29.2%** of all intermodal containers carriers — a one-flag-flip remediation set that segment-specific MSPs can clear in a single quarter without touching DNS infrastructure. **Transport encryption.** MTA-STS adoption sits at 3.5%, materially below the threshold a freight payment-redirect attacker would have to clear to be inconvenienced by transport-layer policy. DNSSEC adoption across intermodal containers carriers runs at **8.5%** (vs 6.1% national). **Risk-band shape.** Intermodal Containers's critical-band share is 7.1% versus 8.4% nationally, with the pressure shifting into the high band (26.9% of segment carriers) where one or two control gaps still leave room for impersonation. **Best-practice control for this segment.** Intermodal shippers should require DMARC enforcement across all carrier and rail-side counterparties, and pin authorized contact identities into the TMS. ## Compare Intermodal Containers with other cargo segments Segments closest in carrier-count rank to Intermodal Containers. Each is scored on the same DNS-derived control set, so the comparison is apples-to-apples. [### Chemicals Rank #1068.8% no DMARC · 9,577 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/chemicals/) [### Oilfield Equipment Rank #1277.1% no DMARC · 8,085 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/oilfield/) [### Refrigerated / Cold Chain Rank #978.1% no DMARC · 16,211 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/refrigerated/) [### Livestock Rank #1376.9% no DMARC · 7,958 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/livestock/) [### Liquids / Gas (Tanker) Rank #870.9% no DMARC · 16,694 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/tanker-liquids-gas/) [← Full US Trucking Email Security Index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/) [← All cargo types](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/) [Switch to state view →](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/) ## See where your own domain stands The research is free and self-serve. Run the same public checks on your own domain in about a minute — SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, DNSSEC, and more — and get a scored report by email. No agents, no credentials. [Scan your domain free →](https://efros.com/tools/security-scan/) [Email security for fleets](https://efros.com/industries/trucking-company-msp/) [Talk to EFROS](https://efros.com/contact/?source=trucking-email-research) Data as of 2026-05-20 from public DNS measurements. Statistics are domain-weighted unless noted. Cargo segment membership is based on FMCSA Company Census cargo flags. Methodology: [read the full index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/).