Trust score
20 / 100
The trust score combines technical checks, reputation signals where available, website history cues, scam intelligence, and AI-assisted analysis.
Authoritative scam intelligence overrides the headline score so guidance stays cautious when feeds disagree with the numeric model.
Signals behind your score
High confidence phishing intelligence match
Availability: unavailable · Site unavailable: no HTTP response received.
Inspection: failed · dns=true · tls=false · botProtection=false · parserFailure=false · contentLength=0 · extractionReason=No HTTP response received.
Matches from scam intelligence
Serious matches from known phishing, malware, or public scam-warning sources. Provider names appear below each row.
Known phishing report found
This website was found in known phishing threat lists during this scan.
Source: OpenPhishSource reliability: high
Detected risk patterns
Additional patterns worth a closer look before you pay or sign in—not proof on their own.
HTTPS/TLS connection not established
A TLS handshake to port 443 did not complete successfully in this probe.
Source: TLS certificate checkSource reliability: high
Helpful signals & observations
Supporting checks in plain language. “Not found” means we did not see a report in that source during this scan.
No police list match found
No direct domain match was found on the public police trader-warning list checked in this scan.
Source: Dutch Police (public pages)Source reliability: low
Registration data (RDAP)
Approximate domain age: 762 days. RDAP target (registrable/root domain): aitptest.com. Registrar: OnlineNIC, Inc.. Country: not provided. Expiration: 2027-05-24T14:54:01.000Z. No obvious privacy-service marker in parsed RDAP cards.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org)Source reliability: high
URLhaus unavailable
HTTP 401
Source: URLhausSource reliability: low
Domain & registration
- Checked URL/hostname: aitptest.com
- Registered domain: aitptest.com
- Registration date: 2024-05-24T14:54:01.000Z
- Domain age: 2 years, 1 month, 2 days
- Registrar: OnlineNIC, Inc.
- Country: unknown
- Expiration date: 2027-05-24T14:54:01.000Z
- Privacy / redacted ownership hints: no / unknown
Source: RDAP (rdap.org)
Redirect analysis
- Original URL: https://aitptest.com/
- Final URL: https://aitptest.com/
- Final domain: aitptest.com
- Redirect count: 0
- Crossed registrable domain: no
- Redirect resolver note: redirect_fetch_failed
Security checks (HTTPS / certificates)
- HTTPS/TLS reachable: no
- Certificate trusted in probe: no
- Possibly self-signed / untrusted: no / unknown
- Issuer: unknown
- Expiry: unknown
Source: TLS certificate check
Technical source details
Raw provider names (OpenPhish, URLhaus, Google Web Risk, RDAP, etc.) for this scan. “Matched” means that source reported something relevant.
Listed in OpenPhish public feedphishingmatched
This host or URL appears on the OpenPhish feed used in this check. Treat as a risk indicator aligned with phishing intelligence.
Source: OpenPhish · severity: danger · reliability: high
HTTPS/TLS connection not establishedsslmatched
A TLS handshake to port 443 did not complete successfully in this probe.
Source: TLS certificate check · severity: danger · reliability: high
No Police page string matchgovernmentno match
No direct domain string overlap was detected in lightly cached excerpts of the referenced politie.nl pages. Missing a hit is not proof a shop is trustworthy.
Source: Dutch Police (public pages) · severity: info · reliability: low
Registration data (RDAP)domainno match
Approximate domain age: 762 days. RDAP target (registrable/root domain): aitptest.com. Registrar: OnlineNIC, Inc.. Country: not provided. Expiration: 2027-05-24T14:54:01.000Z. No obvious privacy-service marker in parsed RDAP cards.
Source: RDAP (rdap.org) · severity: info · reliability: high
URLhaus unavailablemalwareno match
HTTP 401
Source: URLhaus · severity: info · reliability: low
Reputation enrichment
Optional broader reputation pass when available—beyond the quick baseline probes.
No enriched reputation profile surfaced. That limits context; it does not prove the site is unsafe.
Quick review probes (baseline scan)
Lightweight directory checks powering part of the model—hiccups here describe our snapshot, not the shop’s honesty.
Trustpilot · Unavailable
UnavailableTrustpilot
No public reviews found
Checked, no public reviews found
Google Reviews · Not confidently linked
Limited dataGoogle Reviews
We found possible review data, but could not confidently link it to this domain.
Not confidently linked
We found possible review data, but could not confidently link it to this domain.
- No reliable public review data found
No public review profile was found. This limits confidence but does not prove the site is unsafe.
- Public review data unavailable for this check.
Source availability (neutral)
- Third-party Trustpilot snapshot: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
- Indexed review snippets probe: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
Raw review snapshots
Trustpilot raw snapshot: not available in current payload.
Google reviews raw snapshot: not available in current payload.
Fulfillment signals
Dropshipping: unlikely · China-linked fulfillment: unlikely · Local stock/production: unlikely · Confidence low · Score nudge: 0
- Marketplace terms detected: unlikely
- Third-party seller language detected: unlikely
- Cross-border shipping detected: unlikely
- Supplier fulfillment detected: unlikely
- Separate shipment language detected: unlikely
- International shipping detected: unlikely
- Fulfillment confidence: low · Fulfillment score nudge: 0
- Not enough website text to assess supply chain.
Scoring detail (advanced)
Composite model uses raw impacts × confidence weights on the server. Positive numbers push the risk score up; negative numbers pull it down. Neutral rows are explanatory only — they must not be read as endorsement.
Applied trust-score cap after identity guardrails: 100/100 displayed trust.
Combined scoring signals (reviews, reputation, feeds, fulfillment…)
Matches from scam intelligence
- OpenPhish match (+35 raw · high confidence) — OpenPhish reported phishing (hostname).
Trust-positive signals
- Domain over one year old (-4 raw · low confidence) — More than a year of registration history slightly reduces throwaway-domain concern.
- Mail exchangers with SPF or DMARC (-3 raw · low confidence) — MX exists and at least SPF or DMARC is published—common for serious domains and slightly reassuring when intel is incomplete.
Website & technical observations
- No matched Google listing (+0 raw · high confidence) — No Google Places listing matched this domain; review impact is neutral (not a penalty).
- No bait keywords in domain (-5 raw · medium confidence) — The domain does not contain common bait-style sales keywords.
- Normal domain length (-5 raw · low confidence) — Hostname length looks typical rather than excessively long.
Detected risk patterns
- No reliable HTTPS endpoint (+22 raw · high confidence) — Port 443 probe did not complete a TLS session.
Scam intelligence weighting (model)
Matches from scam intelligence
- OpenPhish match (+35 raw · high confidence) — OpenPhish reported phishing (hostname). · OpenPhish
Detected risk patterns
- No reliable HTTPS endpoint (+22 raw · high confidence) — Port 443 probe did not complete a TLS session. · TLS certificate check
Review collector notes (neutral)
Buckets distinguish provider errors, source outages, review-derived signals, and (rare) website crawler transparency—never merged with fraud intel.
- trustpilot_public · source_unavailable: Third-party Trustpilot snapshot: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
- google_indexed_snippets · source_unavailable: Indexed review snippets probe: snapshot unavailable in this crawl (limits confidence only).
Key factors explained
Blended notes from patterns we detected, scam intelligence scoring, and optional AI assistance—not legal or financial advice.
- No common bait keywords were found in the domain.
- Domain length looks normal.
- Not enough website text to assess supply chain.
AI model used in this run: no
