DMARC solutions for finance organizations

The financial services sector faces unprecedented email security challenges in 2025. With Business Email Compromise (BEC) attacks accounting for 26.5% of all BEC cases targeting finance and insurance organizations, and the average financial loss per incident reaching $150,000, email authentication has become a critical business imperative rather than an optional security measure [1]. The stakes are particularly high in finance, where a single successful attack can result in devastating financial losses, regulatory penalties, and irreparable damage to customer trust.

Recent data from the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center reveals that BEC attacks resulted in $2.8 billion in reported losses in 2024 alone, with 64% of financial institutions reporting BEC attacks during the year [2]. These figures represent only reported incidents—the true cost is likely considerably higher when accounting for unreported attacks, operational disruption, and reputational damage.

This guide examines why DMARC implementation is essential for financial organizations, how to evaluate DMARC vendors against finance-specific requirements, and the practical steps needed to achieve robust email authentication in one of the most heavily regulated and targeted industries.

Financial institutions operate in an environment where multiple factors converge to create exceptional vulnerability to email-based attacks.

Regulatory compliance requirements

Financial services organizations face stringent regulatory frameworks that explicitly require robust cybersecurity measures, including email authentication. The New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) Cybersecurity Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500), which governs most major US financial institutions, mandates comprehensive cybersecurity programmes including specific controls for email security [3]. The November 2023 amendments, with implementation deadlines extending through November 2025, have heightened requirements around security controls, incident reporting, and Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) oversight.

UK financial institutions must comply with the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR), which places direct responsibility for regulatory compliance—including cybersecurity measures—at the senior management level. Under SM&CR, senior managers must take reasonable steps to prevent regulatory breaches, making email authentication failures a matter of executive accountability [4].

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) requires financial institutions to explain their information-sharing practices and safeguard sensitive customer data, with 2025 updates including stricter controls on third-party vendors and incident response. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS 4.0) increases requirements around authentication, encryption, and proactive monitoring for organizations handling cardholder data [5].

High-value targets for sophisticated attacks

Financial organizations represent prime targets for cybercriminals due to the direct access to funds and sensitive financial data. The financial services sector incurs the highest phishing-related losses, averaging $1.2 million per incident—significantly higher than other industries [6]. This elevated targeting stems from several factors:

• Direct financial motivation: Unlike other sectors where attackers must monetise stolen data, financial institutions offer immediate access to funds through successful BEC attacks or fraudulent wire transfers
• Credential value: Financial sector credentials command premium prices on dark web markets due to their potential for high-value fraud
• Complex payment workflows: Legitimate financial transactions often involve multiple parties, wire transfers, and time-sensitive payments, making fraudulent requests harder to distinguish from authentic communications
• Customer trust: Financial institutions' communications carry inherent authority, making spoofed emails from banks or investment firms particularly effective against customers

Brand protection imperatives

For financial organizations, email security extends beyond internal protection to encompass customer-facing brand security. Cybercriminals regularly impersonate banks, investment firms, and payment processors to target customers with phishing campaigns. These brand impersonation attacks can:

• Erode customer trust even when the institution itself hasn't been compromised
• Result in direct financial losses for customers, leading to reputational damage and potential liability
• Trigger regulatory scrutiny if inadequate brand protection measures are in place
• Damage market position and competitive advantage through negative publicity

Without proper DMARC implementation, financial organizations have limited visibility into how their domains are being abused and no mechanism to prevent spoofed emails from reaching customers. DMARC at enforcement policies (p=quarantine or p=reject) actively blocks impersonation attempts, whilst advanced implementations with Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI) enable verified logo display in email clients, reinforcing authentic communications [7].

Complex email infrastructure

Financial institutions typically operate complex email ecosystems that make authentication challenging:

• Multiple brands and subsidiaries, each requiring separate DMARC policies
• Third-party service providers for customer communications, marketing, transaction notifications, and regulatory reporting
• Legacy systems that may lack modern authentication support
• Merger and acquisition activity that rapidly changes the email infrastructure landscape
• International operations with varying regional email requirements

This complexity makes professional DMARC vendor support essential, as manual configuration across numerous domains and sending sources creates significant risk of misconfiguration that can disrupt critical business communications.

Whilst implementing DMARC at monitoring level (p=none) represents an important first step, financial organizations cannot afford to remain at this baseline protection level. Current data shows that only 16.5% of domains have implemented DMARC at any policy level, and merely 5.4% have achieved enforcement (p=quarantine or p=reject)—the only policies that actually block spoofed emails [8].

The enforcement gap

A DMARC policy set to p=none provides valuable visibility into email authentication status and potential spoofing attempts, but takes no action to prevent fraudulent emails from reaching recipients. For financial organizations, this monitoring-only approach leaves critical vulnerabilities:

• Customers remain unprotected from brand impersonation attacks
• Internal systems continue to receive sophisticated spear-phishing attempts
• Regulatory requirements for proactive security controls are not fully met
• Compliance with NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation and similar frameworks requires demonstrable protective measures, not just monitoring

Financial institutions must progress from monitoring to enforcement policies within a reasonable timeframe. However, the transition to enforcement carries risks if not properly managed:

• Legitimate email delivery failures if authentication is incomplete
• Disruption to critical business communications during policy changes
• Third-party sender authentication issues that may not surface until enforcement
• Complex subdomain configurations that require careful policy management

This is where vendor selection becomes crucial. Professional DMARC solutions designed for enterprise complexity can guide organizations through enforcement whilst minimising disruption risk.

Advanced threat protection requirements

Financial services face sophisticated threats that exploit gaps in basic email authentication:

• Vendor Email Compromise (VEC): Nearly 40% of organizations experienced monthly VEC attacks in 2023, representing a 50% increase from 2022. VEC attacks impersonate legitimate vendors to request fraudulent payments or banking detail changes, particularly difficult to detect in financial contexts where vendor payment communications are routine [9]
• AI-enhanced attacks: By Q2 2024, approximately 40% of BEC phishing emails were flagged as AI-generated content, with attackers using AI tools to create highly convincing impersonation emails that mirror authentic communication patterns [10]
• Multi-channel coordination: Modern attacks combine email with phone calls, text messages, and social media to create multi-layered deception that basic email authentication alone cannot prevent

Comprehensive DMARC solutions for financial organizations must therefore include advanced threat intelligence, anomaly detection capabilities, and integration with broader security infrastructure to address these sophisticated attack vectors.

Financial organizations require DMARC vendors that can address their unique combination of regulatory requirements, complex infrastructure, and elevated threats. The following framework provides a structured approach to vendor evaluation.

Documentation and reporting capabilities

Financial institutions face regular audits from multiple regulatory bodies. DMARC vendors must provide comprehensive documentation that demonstrates:

• Complete audit trails of all policy changes and authentication events
• Detailed forensic reports on authentication failures and potential security incidents
• Compliance documentation formatted for regulatory examinations
• Historical data retention meeting regulatory requirements (typically 3-7 years)
• Exportable reports suitable for submission to regulators

Red Sift OnDMARC provides extensive compliance reporting capabilities specifically designed for regulated industries, with customisable reports that can be tailored to specific regulatory frameworks including NYDFS, GLBA, and FCA requirements [11].

Policy enforcement timelines

Regulatory frameworks increasingly expect organizations to move beyond monitoring to active protection. Vendors should demonstrate:

• Proven track record for achieving enforcement within regulatory timeframes
• Structured implementation methodology that balances speed with safety
• Risk assessment capabilities to identify potential disruption before policy changes
• Rollback procedures for immediate remediation if issues arise

Red Sift's guided implementation approach achieves DMARC enforcement in 6-8 weeks, which is significantly faster than industry averages whilst maintaining email deliverability [12]. This acceleration is crucial for financial institutions facing compliance deadlines.

Subdomain protection and DNS monitoring

Financial organizations typically manage numerous domains and subdomains across brands, products, and geographies. Comprehensive DMARC solutions must provide:

• Automated subdomain discovery and monitoring
• DNS security monitoring to detect misconfigurations and potential takeover attempts
• Centralised policy management across all organisational domains
• Alerting for unauthorised DNS changes or new domain registrations

Red Sift's DNS Guardian feature provides continuous monitoring for subdomain takeovers and DNS-based attacks, critical for financial institutions where forgotten or misconfigured subdomains represent significant attack vectors [13].

Threat intelligence and forensic capabilities

Beyond basic authentication reporting, financial institutions need deep visibility into threat patterns:

• Real-time threat intelligence on emerging email-based attacks
• Forensic analysis of authentication failures to distinguish legitimate issues from attack attempts
• Correlation with broader threat intelligence feeds to identify coordinated campaigns
• Attribution capabilities to identify attack sources and patterns

Red Sift's proprietary LLM, Radar, provides AI-powered analysis that identifies misconfigurations and policy issues before they impact email deliverability or security posture, essential for maintaining operational continuity in high-stakes financial environments [14].

Dedicated customer success

The complexity of financial sector email infrastructure demands more than self-service tools. Evaluation criteria should include:

• Availability of dedicated customer success managers with financial services experience
• Technical support response times and expertise levels
• Implementation guidance from security professionals who understand regulatory requirements
• Ongoing optimisation support beyond initial deployment

Customer testimonials consistently highlight Red Sift's exceptional support quality. Vinay Tekchandani, Technical Program Manager at Holland & Barrett, stated: "Red Sift makes email security easy. I've done implementations for DMARC before and this was by far the easiest. They take away all the headaches and make it painless" [15].

Multi-domain and acquisition integration

Financial services companies frequently grow through acquisition, requiring DMARC vendors that can rapidly integrate new domains. Key capabilities include:

• Fast onboarding processes for newly acquired domains
• Centralised management interfaces for multi-brand organizations
• Flexible policy structures that accommodate different business units
• Scalability to handle organisational growth without performance degradation

ZoomInfo's experience demonstrates this capability in practice. Kevin Hopkinson, Head of Deliverability, noted: "With the Dynamic Services feature, we have total control of our domains. It brings everything under one roof. With OnDMARC, we are able to scale and grow effectively as we add more employees and complete more acquisitions without worrying about shadow IT" [16].

Third-party service provider management

Financial organizations rely on numerous third-party providers for customer communications, marketing, and operational notifications. DMARC solutions must provide:

• Comprehensive identification of all email sending sources
• Authorisation workflows for third-party senders
• Monitoring of third-party authentication status
• Automated alerts for third-party configuration changes that could impact deliverability

Security infrastructure integration

Email authentication should integrate with broader security operations:

• SIEM integration for centralised security monitoring
• API access for custom integrations and automation
• Compatibility with existing email security gateways
• Integration with identity and access management systems

Red Sift OnDMARC offers extensive integration capabilities through its Dynamic Services feature, which allows organizations to manage SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and MTA-STS records directly from the OnDMARC interface without requiring DNS access—significantly reducing implementation complexity and ongoing maintenance burden [17].

Red Sift OnDMARC has established itself as the preferred choice for financial organisations seeking comprehensive email authentication with regulatory compliance support. Several factors distinguish Red Sift in the financial services context:

Fastest path to enforcement

Red Sift's guided implementation methodology consistently achieves full DMARC enforcement (p=reject) in 6-8 weeks, essential for financial institutions facing regulatory compliance deadlines. This accelerated timeline doesn't compromise safety; rather, it reflects Red Sift's automation-first approach combined with expert human guidance that identifies and resolves potential issues before they impact email delivery.

TalkTalk's experience illustrates this effectiveness. Mark Johnson, Head of Customer Security, reported: "OnDMARC actually helped us discover and reject spoofing attacks we weren't aware of" [18]. This proactive threat detection during implementation represents substantial additional value beyond basic DMARC compliance.

Comprehensive brand protection

Financial organisations require robust brand protection given the frequency of customer-targeted impersonation attacks. Red Sift OnDMARC provides:

• Full DMARC enforcement to block domain spoofing attempts
• BIMI support enabling verified logo display in customer inboxes
• DNS Guardian for comprehensive domain security monitoring
• Continuous threat intelligence on brand impersonation campaigns

This multi-layered approach addresses both direct attacks on organisational infrastructure and customer-facing brand abuse—essential for maintaining trust in financial services contexts.

Exceptional customer success support

The consistent theme across Red Sift customer testimonials is the quality of support and guidance provided throughout implementation and beyond. For financial organisations navigating complex regulatory requirements and sophisticated threats, this human expertise combined with automated tools provides optimal outcomes.

Red Sift maintains a 4.9-star rating on G2 and has been recognised as the #1 DMARC solution in Europe, reflecting consistent customer satisfaction across enterprise deployments [19].

Proven financial sector success

Red Sift's customer base includes financial services organisations that have successfully navigated complex implementations whilst maintaining operational continuity and achieving rapid enforcement. These proven outcomes demonstrate Red Sift's capability to deliver results in high-stakes financial environments where email disruption can have severe business consequences.

Successfully implementing DMARC in financial services requires careful planning and execution to balance security objectives with operational continuity and regulatory compliance.

Comprehensive email audit

Begin with a thorough assessment of your email infrastructure:

• Identify all domains and subdomains used for email communications
• Catalog all legitimate email sending sources, including third-party providers
• Document current authentication status (SPF, DKIM) for all sending sources
• Map email flows for critical business processes (wire transfer confirmations, customer statements, regulatory reporting)
• Identify high-risk domains that are frequent impersonation targets

Stakeholder engagement

DMARC implementation affects multiple organisational functions. Early engagement is essential:

• Brief senior management and the CISO on implementation objectives and timeline
• Engage compliance and legal teams regarding regulatory requirements
• Coordinate with IT and security operations for implementation logistics
• Inform business units about potential impacts on email communications
• Establish escalation procedures for implementation issues

Vendor selection and onboarding

Based on the evaluation framework outlined above, select a DMARC vendor with proven financial services experience. Red Sift OnDMARC offers free DMARC assessment tools that provide initial visibility into your authentication status without commitment [20].

Implement monitoring-level DMARC

Deploy DMARC policies at p=none across all domains to enable visibility without blocking any email:

• Configure DMARC records with aggregate (RUA) and forensic (RUF) reporting
• Establish baseline authentication rates for all sending sources
• Identify unauthorized sending sources and potential spoofing attempts
• Document legitimate senders requiring authentication configuration

Third-party sender authentication

Work systematically through all third-party email service providers:

• Contact providers to implement SPF and DKIM authentication
• Test authentication for all provider-sent communications
• Document authentication status for audit purposes
• Establish monitoring for third-party configuration changes

Achieve comprehensive authentication

Address authentication gaps identified during monitoring:

• Implement DKIM signing for all internal email systems
• Configure SPF records for all legitimate sending sources
• Resolve authentication failures that could cause delivery issues under enforcement
• Test authentication for critical communication workflows

Subdomain policy decisions

Determine appropriate DMARC policies for subdomains:

• Identify actively used subdomains requiring their own policies
• Implement "relaxed" alignment if needed for legitimate use cases
• Consider subdomain-specific enforcement timelines based on criticality
• Monitor for shadow IT email sending that may have been overlooked

Progressive policy tightening

Move from monitoring to enforcement in measured steps:

• Implement p=quarantine at low percentage (e.g., pct=10) initially
• Monitor impact on email delivery and authentication failures
• Gradually increase enforcement percentage as confidence builds
• Address any delivery issues promptly before expanding enforcement
• Progress to p=reject only when authentication rates consistently exceed 95%

Continuous monitoring and optimization

DMARC implementation doesn't end at enforcement:

• Maintain ongoing monitoring for authentication failures
• Investigate and remediate any legitimate email authentication issues
• Monitor for new unauthorized sending sources
• Review threat intelligence for brand impersonation attempts
• Conduct quarterly policy reviews to ensure optimal configuration

BIMI implementation

Once DMARC enforcement is stable, consider implementing BIMI:

• Obtain required Verified Mark Certificate (VMC)
• Configure BIMI DNS records
• Test logo display across major email clients
• Monitor adoption as email providers expand BIMI support

DNS security monitoring

Implement comprehensive DNS monitoring to protect against additional threats:

• Monitor for subdomain takeover attempts
• Alert on unauthorized DNS changes
• Track domain expiration dates to prevent accidental lapses
• Implement DNSSEC where appropriate for additional DNS security

DMARC vendor pricing varies significantly based on email volume, feature requirements, and support levels. Financial organisations should evaluate total cost of ownership rather than focusing solely on subscription fees.

Volume-based pricing

Most DMARC vendors price based on email volume, with higher volumes requiring more robust infrastructure:

• Basic plans typically support up to 10,000-50,000 emails/day
• Mid-tier plans accommodate 50,000-500,000 emails/day
• Enterprise plans support unlimited or very high volumes

Financial institutions with substantial customer communication volume should ensure vendors can scale without degraded performance or prohibitive price increases.

Feature tiers

Advanced features often require higher-tier plans:

• Basic: DMARC monitoring, aggregate reporting, basic support
• Professional: Enforcement guidance, subdomain monitoring, enhanced support
• Enterprise: Advanced threat intelligence, API access, dedicated support, DNS security features

Implementation and support costs

The hidden cost in DMARC implementation is the time and expertise required. Consider:

• Internal resource requirements for self-service solutions
• Value of guided implementation that accelerates enforcement
• Ongoing support costs for policy optimization and issue resolution
• Risk mitigation value of expert guidance preventing email delivery issues

The investment in comprehensive DMARC solutions delivers measurable returns:

Direct cost avoidance

• Average BEC attack loss: $150,000
• 64% of financial institutions experienced BEC attacks in 2024
• Expected loss reduction: 30% or more with DMARC enforcement

For a typical financial institution, preventing just one successful BEC attack per year through DMARC enforcement likely covers multiple years of vendor costs.

Regulatory penalty avoidance

Non-compliance with cybersecurity regulations carries significant penalties:

• NYDFS violations can result in substantial fines and remediation costs
• FCA enforcement actions include public censure and financial penalties
• GLBA violations carry penalties up to $100,000 per violation

Brand protection value

Customer trust is foundational in financial services. The reputational damage from brand impersonation campaigns—even when the institution itself hasn't been compromised—can result in:

• Customer attrition and reduced acquisition
• Increased customer service costs addressing fraud concerns
• Market position deterioration relative to competitors with stronger security
• Long-term brand value erosion

Operational efficiency

Comprehensive DMARC solutions reduce security team workload:

• Automated threat detection reduces manual investigation requirements
• Centralized policy management eliminates duplicate effort across domains
• Integration with existing security tools reduces alert fatigue
• Proactive issue identification prevents reactive crisis management

Red Sift OnDMARC uses custom pricing based on organizational requirements, ensuring financial institutions pay for capabilities they need without unnecessary costs for unused features. This approach typically includes:

• Comprehensive implementation support to accelerate enforcement
• Dedicated customer success management
• Advanced threat intelligence and DNS security features
• Scalability for organizational growth and acquisition integration
• Regulatory compliance documentation and audit support

Financial organisations can request a free DMARC assessment to understand their current authentication status and receive tailored pricing based on specific requirements [20].

DMARC implementation addresses multiple regulatory requirements simultaneously, making it a high-efficiency security investment for financial organisations.

The November 2023 amendments to NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation include several provisions directly relevant to email security:

Access controls and authentication: Covered entities must implement multi-factor authentication and risk-based controls to protect non-public information. DMARC enforcement prevents unauthorized parties from successfully impersonating organizational email domains, complementing access controls.

Cybersecurity program requirements: The regulation requires comprehensive cybersecurity programmes including policies and procedures to protect information systems. DMARC implementation demonstrates proactive email security controls.

Incident response and reporting: The amendments strengthen incident reporting requirements. DMARC solutions with comprehensive threat intelligence and forensic capabilities support incident detection and documentation.

Chief Information Security Officer responsibilities: CISOs must report "material cybersecurity issues" to the senior governing body. DMARC reporting provides CISOs with visibility into email-based threats and authentication status for board reporting.

Under the FCA's SM&CR, senior managers are personally accountable for preventing regulatory breaches within their areas of responsibility. Email security failures that result in customer harm or data breaches can trigger SM&CR accountability:

Duty of responsibility: Senior managers must take reasonable steps to prevent or stop breaches. Implementing DMARC enforcement demonstrates reasonable and proactive measures to prevent email-based fraud.

Conduct rules: The Individual Conduct Rules require individuals to act with integrity and due care. Failing to implement available email authentication measures when email-based fraud is a known threat could constitute a conduct breach.

Consumer duty: The FCA's Consumer Duty requires firms to act in good faith toward customers and avoid foreseeable harm. Brand impersonation attacks that target customers represent foreseeable harm that DMARC implementation directly addresses.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions to implement comprehensive information security programmes. The FTC's Safeguards Rule, updated in 2021 with further refinements through 2023, specifically requires:

Risk assessment: Organizations must conduct periodic risk assessments of their information systems. DMARC threat intelligence provides ongoing risk visibility for email channels.

Access controls: The Safeguards Rule requires access controls commensurate with risk. DMARC enforcement ensures only authorized parties can send authenticated email from organizational domains.

Security monitoring: Continuous monitoring is required to detect security events and suspicious activity. DMARC reporting provides continuous email authentication monitoring.

Incident response: The Safeguards Rule requires incident response capabilities. DMARC forensic reports support investigation of email-based security incidents.

Financial institutions handling payment card data must comply with PCI DSS requirements. Several provisions relate to email security:

Requirement 8: Strong authentication and access controls to protect systems. DMARC provides authentication for email channels.

Requirement 12: Information security policy that addresses email security and social engineering threats. DMARC implementation supports policy requirements for email protection.

Requirement 5: Malware protection and anti-phishing controls. DMARC reduces phishing success rates by blocking domain spoofing attempts.

Comprehensive DMARC solutions provide documentation that satisfies regulatory examination requirements:

• Authentication status reports demonstrating email security controls
• Threat intelligence reports showing proactive monitoring and threat detection
• Policy implementation documentation with change control records
• Incident investigation reports with forensic detail
• Compliance reports formatted for specific regulatory frameworks

Red Sift OnDMARC's compliance reporting capabilities are specifically designed to support financial services audits, providing regulators with clear documentation of email authentication status and security controls [11].

In an industry built on trust, financial organisations that demonstrate superior security posture gain competitive advantage. Email authentication represents a visible commitment to security that can be communicated to customers, partners, and regulators.

Consumers increasingly evaluate financial institutions based on security practices. Email authentication enables:

• BIMI-enabled branded emails that display verified logos in customer inboxes
• Public demonstration of security commitment through published DMARC policies
• Reduced customer exposure to phishing attacks that impersonate the institution
• Enhanced customer confidence in email communications

Financial regulators increasingly scrutinize cybersecurity practices. Organizations with comprehensive email authentication can demonstrate:

• Proactive security posture rather than reactive compliance
• Implementation of industry best practices
• Investment in security controls commensurate with risk
• Continuous monitoring and threat intelligence capabilities

This proactive approach can influence regulatory examinations, potentially reducing scrutiny in other areas when examiners observe robust security practices.

Email represents a critical business communication channel for financial services. DMARC implementation, particularly with comprehensive vendor support, enhances operational resilience:

• Reduced risk of email delivery disruptions from authentication issues
• Faster recovery from email-based security incidents through forensic capabilities
• Improved visibility into email infrastructure reducing shadow IT risks
• Simplified management through centralized policy control

The evidence is compelling: financial organisations cannot afford to delay DMARC implementation or remain at monitoring-only policies. With 64% of financial institutions experiencing BEC attacks in 2024, average losses of $150,000 per incident, and increasing regulatory expectations for email security, comprehensive DMARC implementation represents both a critical security control and a regulatory necessity [2].

The vendor selection decision significantly impacts implementation success. Financial organisations should prioritize vendors with:

• Proven expertise in financial services environments
• Comprehensive support for rapid yet safe enforcement
• Advanced threat intelligence and brand protection capabilities
• Regulatory compliance documentation and audit support
• Scalability for complex multi-domain environments

Red Sift OnDMARC delivers on all these requirements, providing financial institutions with the fastest path to comprehensive email authentication—6-8 weeks to full enforcement, whilst maintaining email deliverability and providing exceptional customer support [12].

1. Assess current status: Use Red Sift's free DMARC assessment tools to understand your current email authentication status and identify gaps [20]
2. Evaluate regulatory requirements: Review applicable frameworks (NYDFS, FCA, GLBA, PCI DSS) to understand specific email security obligations and implementation timelines
3. Conduct vendor evaluation: Use the framework provided in this guide to assess DMARC vendors against your organisation's specific requirements
4. Engage stakeholders: Brief senior management, compliance, and IT teams on implementation objectives and expected timeline
5. Begin implementation: Partner with a proven DMARC vendor to begin the journey from monitoring to enforcement

The financial services threat landscape continues to evolve, with attackers becoming increasingly sophisticated in their email-based attacks. Organizations that implement comprehensive DMARC protection position themselves to defend against current threats whilst building resilience against future attack vectors.

Email authentication is no longer optional for financial organisations—it's a business imperative, a regulatory requirement, and a competitive differentiator. The time to act is now.

Red Sift OnDMARC offers financial institutions:

• Regulatory compliance support: Documentation and reporting designed for NYDFS, FCA, GLBA, and PCI DSS requirements
• Fastest path to enforcement: Achieve full DMARC protection in 6-8 weeks with expert guidance
• Comprehensive brand protection: Advanced threat intelligence, DNS security monitoring, and BIMI support
• Proven financial sector success: Trusted by financial institutions globally with 4.9-star G2 rating

Our promise: Your organization will have complete email authentication protection with comprehensive regulatory compliance support and the industry's most responsive customer success team.

[1] BrightDefense. (2024). "200+ Phishing Statistics." https://www.brightdefense.com/resources/phishing-statistics/ 

[2] TechMagic. (2025). "Phishing Statistics in 2025: The Ultimate Insight." https://www.techmagic.co/blog/blog-phishing-attack-statistics 

[3] Phillips Lytle. (2024). "New Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Service Companies." https://phillipslytle.com/new-cybersecurity-requirements-for-financial-service-companies/ 

[4] Beyond Encryption. (2025). "Financial Services Email Compliance: The Checklist." https://www.beyondencryption.com/blog/email-compliance-checklist 

[5] StrongDM. (2025). "15 Cybersecurity Regulations for Financial Services in 2025." https://www.strongdm.com/blog/cybersecurity-regulations-financial-industry 

[6] BrightDefense. (2024). "200+ Phishing Statistics." https://www.brightdefense.com/resources/phishing-statistics/ 

[7] Red Sift. (2025). "What is Brand Indicators for Message Identification (BIMI)?." https://redsift.com/guides/bimi 

[8] Red Sift. (2024). "2.3 million organizations embrace DMARC compliance." https://blog.redsift.com/email/dmarc/2-3-million-organizations-embrace-dmarc-compliance/ 

[9] Abnormal AI. (2024). "Threat Report: BEC & VEC Attacks Show No Signs of Slowing." https://abnormal.ai/blog/bec-vec-attacks 

[10] Hoxhunt. (2025). "Business Email Compromise Statistics 2025 (+Prevention Guide)." https://hoxhunt.com/blog/business-email-compromise-statistics 

[11] Red Sift. (2025). "OnDMARC Product Information." https://redsift.com/pulse-platform/ondmarc 

[12] Red Sift. (2025). "Top DMARC Vendors 2025." https://redsift.com/guides/top-dmarc-vendors-2025 

[13] Red Sift. (2025). "OnDMARC Product Information." https://redsift.com/pulse-platform/ondmarc 

[14] Red Sift. (2025). "Top DMARC Vendors 2025." https://redsift.com/guides/top-dmarc-vendors-2025 

[15] Red Sift. (2024). "Customer Success Stories." https://redsift.com/resource-center/case-study/holland-and-barrett 

[16] Red Sift. (2024). "Customer Success Stories." https://redsift.com/resource-center/case-study/zoominfo 

[17] Red Sift. (2025). "Top DMARC Vendors 2025." https://redsift.com/guides/top-dmarc-vendors-2025 

[18] Red Sift. (2024). "OnDMARC Product Information." https://redsift.com/resource-center/case-study/talktalk 

[19] Red Sift. (2025). "Europe's #1 for DMARC: Red Sift OnDMARC does it again." https://blog.redsift.com/news/europes-1-for-dmarc-red-sift-ondmarc-does-it-again/ 

[20] Red Sift. (2025). "Free DMARC Assessment Tools." https://redsift.com/tools/investigate