About MyRecon

MyRecon is an open-source intelligence (OSINT) platform for defenders, researchers, and privacy-conscious individuals who want to understand a digital footprint using only public, lawful data sources.

Accuracy over noise

Many OSINT tools inflate their results with fragile scrapers and undocumented endpoints that produce false positives. MyRecon deliberately favours a smaller set of reliable, documented sources, RDAP for registration data, DNS-over-HTTPS for records, official APIs for breach and profile data, and validates username matches per platform to reduce false positives.

What you can investigate

Usernames across a wide range of platforms, with avatar and bio enrichment and cross-platform identity correlation.
Email addresses: provider and deliverability analysis, linked accounts, and breach exposure.
Domains: WHOIS/RDAP registration, DNS records, and the resolved server's geolocation.
IP addresses: geolocation, network ownership, hosting flags, and reverse DNS.

Who uses MyRecon

People use MyRecon to review their own public footprint, support authorized security assessments, check public breach and infrastructure signals, and research claims using source links they can verify. Developers and administrators can also use the domain, DNS, and IP tools for routine configuration checks. These tools surface leads from public data; they do not establish identity or replace consent and professional judgment.

What we publish, and how it is written

Alongside the tools, MyRecon publishes three bodies of written work, and they are produced in deliberately different ways.

The Breach Files: an archive of confirmed breaches, rebuilt several times a day. Each entry quotes the breach description published by Have I Been Pwned under its CC BY 4.0 licence, with the attribution in the article body rather than a footer. Everything around that quotation is ours: the severity score, the explanation of what each exposed field means for the person it belongs to, the scale comparison and the advice, all derived from the fields in the record, so the analysis cannot drift from the evidence. Where we have a view on a particular breach, it appears at the top of the article under a clear byline, separated from the generated analysis so a reader is never left guessing which is which.
Case Files: long-form accounts of the landmark incidents, written from the public record: regulatory findings, court filings, company disclosures and contemporaneous reporting, cited at the foot of each page. Where a figure was revised, we use the number the organisation or its regulator finally settled on and say what it was first reported as. Where an account is disputed, the page says so rather than picking a side.
Guides: practical explanations of online privacy, account security, public-source research, breaches, and identity verification. They describe the limits of each technique and point to official sources where readers can check current steps.

An observed result carries its source, observation date and access context. A worked example labeled illustrative is a teaching example, not a completed account test. Workflow diagrams are illustrations; captured browser images are labeled screenshots. External provider instructions are checked against linked documentation, but a linked procedure does not mean we exercised it on a personal account.

Our false-positive review includes a frozen historical run and explains its shared-reference and small-sample limitations. The evidence register and retention worksheet are downloadable examples for readers to adapt locally. They do not send completed notes to MyRecon. Modification dates record content or source changes; routine rebuilds are not a new field test.

Checking any of this

Everything above is a claim made by the people who built the thing. Two pages exist so you do not have to take it on trust: six tests you can run yourself: which work on any tool in this category, not just ours, and how MyRecon compares, which explains workflows and the limits of the available comparison evidence.

Corrections

If something here is wrong, we want to know and we will fix it. Write to us through the contact page with the page and the correction, and if it is a factual error the page is updated and the change reflected in its modification date. Breach records that are later revised by their source are picked up automatically at the next rebuild.

How MyRecon is funded

Advertising appears on parts of the site, which supports the free tools and written archive; what that means for your data is set out in our privacy policy. We also offer optional ₹99 Extended scan pack and a paid, manual footprint review and removal service, carried out only on identifiers the client owns and can verify. Nothing in the archive is sponsored, no breach entry is paid for or suppressed, and no advertiser has any input into what is published.

Privacy

You can start as a guest. Recent lookup history stays in your browser, while results may be cached briefly on the server. If you sign in, completed username scans are saved to your account so you can reopen or delete them. See the privacy policy for details.

Responsible use

MyRecon surfaces information that is already public. It is intended for lawful security research, personal footprint checks, and authorized investigations only. Do not use it for harassment, stalking, or any activity that violates applicable laws or platform terms. See our Terms.

Who builds MyRecon

MyRecon is built by Aryan Walia, founder of BugSnaps: a penetration testing and offensive security practice that helps growing businesses find and fix vulnerabilities before attackers do.

MyRecon grew out of that work. Mapping an organisation's attack surface and mapping a person's public footprint are the same exercise with a different subject: you enumerate what is reachable, verify what is real, and discard what only looks like a finding. The discipline that matters most in a penetration test, never report something you have not confirmed, is the one this tool is built around, which is why it labels results by confidence and says "unconfirmed" instead of inflating a count.