Starfield Technologies
United States · www.starfieldtech.com · 1 vendor
Starfield Technologies, LLC is an American certification authority and a subsidiary of GoDaddy Inc. It specializes in issuing SSL/TLS certificates to secure websites, protect sensitive data, and enable secure online transactions, operating a public key infrastructure (PKI).
Resilience scores
- Digital Sovereignty: 100
- Digital Resilience: 4
Technology vendors
- GoDaddy Inc. — Technology — United States
Services catalogue
1 service in catalogue across 1 category; runs on 1 sub-vendor.
- Starfield Technologies
Insights
Last updated 2026-04-21 · revision 2
1 direct vendor, 0 subvendors
Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)
- United States: 1
Migration Readiness: 2/10
Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.
Starfield Technologies demonstrates low migration readiness (Score: 20). The primary challenge stems from the complete lack of information regarding its internal tech stack, key technologies, regulatory environment, data residency requirements, and financial stability. Without details on whether the tech stack is cloud-native, containerized, or legacy, assessing migration complexity is impossible. The most significant impediment to migration readiness is the high potential for vendor lock-in. Although 'Total Vendors: 0' is stated, the provided vendor data indicates 'Total Services: 2' are sourced from vendors with 'Vendor HQ Countries: United States' and 'Vendor Geographic Diversity: 1 unique countries'. This suggests a high concentration of vendor relationships within a single geographic region, and potentially a very limited number of vendors for critical services, which significantly increases vendor lock-in risk and migration complexity. The 'Vendor Lock-in Risk' is explicitly 'Unknown', but the concentration points to a high likelihood of challenges.
Compliance
5 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.
GDPR (source) — Assessment Required
Without knowing the company's specific operations, customer base, or data processing activities, there's uncertainty about EU/EEA personal data processing. US companies often process EU personal data through websites, employees, or business relationships. Non-compliance risks include fines up to 4% of global turnover or €20M. Given the company's unknown scope of operations, this requires assessment to determine applicability.
NIS2 (source) — Assessment Required
NIS2 applies only to Essential or Important Entities operating in EU with 50+ employees or €10M+ turnover. Without knowing the company's industry sector, EU operations, or size, applicability cannot be determined. However, risk is lower as it requires specific sector classification and EU presence. Non-compliance could result in fines up to €10M or 2% of global turnover for Essential Entities.
HIPAA (source) — Assessment Required
HIPAA applies to healthcare entities and their business associates handling Protected Health Information (PHI) in the US. Without knowing the company's industry or services, applicability is uncertain. Technology companies often serve healthcare clients, making them potential business associates. Non-compliance can result in fines from $100 to $50,000 per violation, with annual maximums reaching $1.5M per violation category.
Financials
Three-year financials
- null:
- null:
- null:
Financial Resilience Score: null/10
No financial data was retrievable for Starfield Technologies from the research conducted. The report indicates attempts were made to access SEC EDGAR filings and public sources, but no substantive financial disclosures, revenue figures, operating income, or balance sheet data were surfaced. Without any quantitative financial information, a meaningful resilience assessment cannot be completed. This absence of data itself may indicate the company is either very early-stage, privately held with minimal public disclosure obligations, or operating under a name that does not match registered entity records. The inability to locate SEC filings suggests the company is not publicly traded and has no mandatory disclosure requirements, which is consistent with a small private technology firm. Until audited financials, investor disclosures, or credible third-party data become available, no score can be responsibly assigned.
Risk factors: No verifiable financial data available from any public source, Absence of SEC EDGAR filings suggests no public reporting obligations, Opacity of financials limits ability to assess solvency, liquidity, or profitability, Unknown revenue scale, cost structure, and capital position
Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.