Compliance Check

Check SSL/TLS compliance against security standards

Domain

Port

Standard

Results

About

The SSL/TLS Compliance Checker verifies that your domain's TLS configuration meets specific regulatory and industry standards including PCI DSS, NIST, HIPAA, SOC 2, and ISO 27001. It checks protocol versions, cipher suites, key sizes, certificate requirements, and security headers against the requirements of each standard.

Each compliance standard has specific TLS requirements — for example, PCI DSS requires TLS 1.2+ and prohibits weak ciphers, while NIST has specific key size and algorithm recommendations. The checker provides a pass/fail status for each requirement with detailed explanations of any failures and specific remediation steps to achieve compliance.

How to Use

1Enter your domain name and select the compliance standard to check against
2Choose from PCI DSS, NIST, HIPAA, SOC 2, or ISO 27001
3Click "Check Compliance" to run the analysis
4Review the detailed compliance report showing pass/fail status for each requirement

Use Cases

•PCI DSS Assessment: Verify TLS meets Requirement 4 (encrypt transmission of cardholder data) before annual PCI assessments
•HIPAA Compliance: Ensure TLS configuration meets HIPAA Security Rule requirements for protecting electronic protected health information
•SOC 2 Audit Preparation: Document TLS compliance for SOC 2 Type II audits covering security and availability trust service criteria
•NIST Framework Alignment: Verify TLS meets NIST SP 800-52 Rev 2 recommendations for government and enterprise environments
•ISO 27001 Certification: Demonstrate TLS compliance with Annex A controls for cryptography and network security

What Is Checked

Compliance frameworks say little about TLS specifically, so the checks here target the transport requirements that do exist and are testable — and are explicit about the rest.

1Require a current protocol version, read from a live handshake. Older than 1.2 fails in every framework that names a floor, which is why this check appears across the compliance pages.
2Reject weak cipher components, since the framework's requirement is appropriate protection and named broken constructions do not provide it regardless of protocol version.
3Check certificate validity, and check HSTS, the latter because encrypted transport is only continuous if browsers are instructed to keep it encrypted. Both are fetched rather than assumed.

A pass here means the machine-checkable transport subset passed. It does not mean compliance, because the great majority of every framework — scope, access control, retention, subject rights, evidence — is invisible from outside and is what an assessment actually examines.

Tips & Best Practices

•Run compliance checks quarterly and after any TLS configuration changes
•Address critical failures immediately — they represent actual compliance violations
•Document compliance reports for audit evidence and retain for at least 12 months
•Use the API to automate compliance checking as part of your CI/CD pipeline

Technical Details

●Standards Covered: PCI DSS v4.0, NIST SP 800-52 Rev 2, HIPAA Security Rule, SOC 2, ISO 27001

●Requirements Checked: Protocol versions, cipher suites, key sizes, certificate validity, HSTS, OCSP stapling

●Scoring: Percentage-based compliance score with individual requirement pass/fail

●Remediation: Specific configuration changes needed for each failed requirement

Frequently Asked Questions

Start with PCI DSS if you process payment cards — it has the strictest and most specific TLS requirements. For healthcare, check HIPAA. For general enterprise security, use NIST SP 800-52. Most organizations should aim to pass all applicable standards simultaneously, as they share many common requirements.

Partial compliance means some requirements pass while others fail. For example, you might support TLS 1.2 (pass) but still allow weak ciphers (fail). The report details each requirement individually so you can address specific failures while maintaining passing requirements.

Run checks quarterly as part of routine security reviews, after any TLS configuration changes, before annual audits, and whenever new compliance requirements are published. The API supports automated scheduled checks that can integrate with your compliance monitoring dashboard.

No, and the page says so rather than implying otherwise. Transport encryption is one component of each framework. Compliance is established by implementing the controls and documenting them, assessed by someone reviewing evidence — not by a scan. What a pass gives you is a specific, verifiable claim: the transport layer meets the requirements that can be tested automatically.

Because encryption that can be bypassed on the first request is not continuous protection, and frameworks that require encryption in transit care about the transport actually being encrypted. HSTS removes the window in which a first request is made in the clear. It is a transport control expressed in a header, which is why it belongs here rather than in a separate application-security section.

Accurately and narrowly. Say which checks passed and which failed, and state that the remaining controls were not assessed. That is more defensible than either claiming compliance or dismissing the result — the failed checks are real findings worth fixing, and the unassessed ones need evidence rather than a scanner.

The transport requirements that are common across them, because those are the ones that are actually specified and testable. Where frameworks differ — some name a minimum protocol version explicitly and others do not — the stricter interpretation is applied, since it satisfies both. That is a deliberate choice rather than an attempt at a single unified standard.

Confirm the failure is transport-related rather than a trust-store artifact, then fix what applies. Internal certificates commonly chain to a private root that no public store contains, which produces untrusted results from outside while working perfectly inside — so run the check from a host that legitimately connects before changing anything. For the enforcement side, separate internal and external estates rather than weakening the external posture to suit internal traffic.