--- title: "Utah Trucking Email Security — 78.9% lack DMARC | EFROS" description: "Email-security posture of 5,271 active motor carriers in Utah. 78.9% of domains have no enforced DMARC, 7.7% use p=reject. Free, public, source-cited." canonical: https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/utah/ --- - [Home](https://efros.com/) - /[Research](https://efros.com/research/) - /[US Trucking Email Security Index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/) - /[By State](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/) - /Utah By State / Utah # Utah Trucking Email Security **78.9%** of active carrier domains in Utah have no enforced DMARC. That leaves freight operators open to email impersonation, payment-redirect fraud, and cargo theft via phishing. Edition: 2026-Q2 State rank: #24 Carriers: 5,271 Domains: 4,479 By [Stefan Efros](https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefanefros-cyberdefense/), CEO & Founder, EFROS Updated · May 19, 2026 No enforced DMARC 78.9% national: 80.1% p=reject 7.7% national: 7.5% Microsoft 365 33.7% national: 38.1% M365 + no DMARC (carriers) 1,045 national: 92,822 MTA-STS 3.2% national: 3.3% DNSSEC 6.5% national: 6.1% Dead domains 286 of 4,479 scanned Total carriers 5,271 287 with dead domain ## Risk bands — Utah 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+ | 578 | 527 | | High | score 50–69 | 1,567 | 1,297 | | Medium | score 30–49 | 1,997 | 1,675 | | Low | score 15–29 | 804 | 661 | | Minimal | score ## Utah vs. national average No enforced DMARC 78.9% vs 80.1% national p=reject adoption 7.7% vs 7.5% national MTA-STS 3.2% vs 3.3% national DNSSEC 6.5% vs 6.1% national ## What the Utah numbers actually mean **DMARC posture.** Utah's share of carrier domains with no enforced DMARC sits at **78.9%**, within 1.2 points of the national average. enforced p=reject DMARC adoption is roughly in line with the national pool: most Utah domains either have no DMARC at all or are stuck at the monitor-only p=none policy. At the protective end of the distribution, 7.7% of Utah domains are at p=reject, the only DMARC policy that actually instructs receivers to drop spoofed mail. **Microsoft 365 surface.** Microsoft 365 mailflow adoption sits below the national rate, which shifts the remediation surface toward self-hosted and Google Workspace estates where DMARC has to be configured at the DNS layer rather than flipped on in a tenant policy. That share is **19.8%** of all Utah carriers — a one-flag-flip remediation set that any regional MSP or in-house IT lead can clear in a single quarter. **Transport encryption.** MTA-STS adoption sits at 3.2%, materially below the threshold a freight payment-redirect attacker would have to clear to be inconvenienced by transport-layer policy. DNSSEC adoption in Utah runs at **6.5%** (vs 6.1% national), which matters for downstream DKIM and MTA-STS validation but is still a minority signal. **Risk-band shape.** 11.0% of Utah carriers sit in the critical risk band (score 70+), above the national share of 8.4%. A disproportionate cluster carries simultaneously broken SPF, missing or monitor-only DMARC, and no MTA-STS. The composite pain score blends SPF posture, DMARC enforcement, MTA-STS presence, and DNSSEC, so a carrier clusters in the critical band only when several controls fail together. Remediation that flips DMARC to enforcement plus turns on MTA-STS typically moves a carrier two bands down in one quarter. **What this means for buyers and shippers.** If you are dispatching freight, settling broker payments, or receiving rate confirmations from Utah-based carriers, the operational exposure is the 78.9%of domains that cannot stop a stranger from sending email in the carrier's name. Payment-redirect and load-redirect fraud rides on exactly that gap. Verifying a counterparty's DMARC posture before a first wire (a 30-second DNS lookup) is the cheapest control in the freight stack. ## Compare Utah with other states States closest in carrier-count rank to Utah. Each is scored on the same DNS-derived control set, so the comparison is apples-to-apples. [### Iowa Rank #2373.0% no DMARC · 5,584 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/iowa/) [### Missouri Rank #2574.5% no DMARC · 6,074 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/missouri/) [### Arizona Rank #2279.5% no DMARC · 6,280 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/arizona/) [### Oklahoma Rank #2678.5% no DMARC · 4,697 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/oklahoma/) [### Oregon Rank #2177.5% no DMARC · 5,752 carriers](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/oregon/) [← Full US Trucking Email Security Index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/) [← All states](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-state/) [Switch to cargo-segment view →](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/by-cargo/) ## 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 2026-05-20from public DNS measurements. Statistics are domain-weighted unless noted. State scope is the carrier's FMCSA-registered state. Methodology: [read the full index](https://efros.com/research/us-trucking-email-security-index/).