Is citruscode.dev a scam site? Scam, spam & reviews
Scores & key points
Caution signals ⓘ
- [Low] Without SPF/DMARC, email sender spoofing risk is increased.
- [Low] Cookie security attributes are insufficient (total 2).
Reputation
Review summary — citruscode.dev
Overall 81 (Mostly safe)Multiple security indicators are favorable and there are few major risk signals.
Strengths
- Valid SSL/TLS certificate
- HSTS enabled
- CSP enabled
- SPF configured
Weaknesses
- DMARC not configured
Detailed review — citruscode.dev
Domain review
Hosting / AS: DPS/2.0.0+sha-6e30ec3 — United States. Popularity: OPR 0.00/10. Reputation: GSB clean WebRisk clean. Email security: SPF On, DMARC None. Certificate valid until: 2026-05-29T04:09:12+00:00.
Shop / transaction review
No mixed content detected. No mixed content detected. Structured data: Organization Absent, contactPoint Absent. Hidden text ratio 0%.
Technical review
HTTP 200 Success · Server DPS/2.0.0+sha-6e30ec3. HSTS On (preload: Enabled). Applies 2/6 security headers. DNSSEC Off. Email security: SPF On, DMARC None. MTA‑STS policy: None. security.txt: not available. Missing cookie attributes: Secure×0 / HttpOnly×1 / SameSite×1. JS obfuscation score 0. Reputation: GSB clean, WebRisk clean → overall Good.
Explanation — strengths and stability
GSB clean
WebRisk clean
Certificate valid until: 2026-05-29T04:09:12+00:00.
Email security: SPF On, DMARC None.
No mixed content detected.
Looking at operator information together with trust metrics helps you judge brand/merchant consistency and the likelihood of long‑term operation.
Checking payment page security (HTTPS enforcement, form target host consistency, script integrity) along with customer support and return policy gives a more accurate sense of real‑world trust.
In parallel, applying security headers, automated certificate renewal, email domain protection (DMARC/TLS‑RPT), and removing mixed content will improve overall reliability and delivery/search stability.
Explanation — risks and areas to improve
Missing key security headers leaves the site vulnerable to clickjacking, MIME sniffing, and data leakage.
Without DNSSEC, trust relies solely on parent name servers and DNS tampering risks can be higher in some environments.
If DMARC is absent or set to p=none, protection against sender spoofing is weak. Consider quarantine/reject policies.
Without MTA‑STS, SMTP TLS enforcement is weaker.
Without security.txt, the vulnerability disclosure channel is unclear and response may be delayed.
Cookies without Secure / HttpOnly / SameSite can be vulnerable to theft or session fixation attacks.
Looking at operator information together with trust metrics helps you judge brand/merchant consistency and the likelihood of long‑term operation.
This analysis is an automated, data‑based opinion for reference only. Please verify the information yourself before paying or downloading anything.
About this report
- First analysis: -
- Last updated: 2025-11-19 10:05:32
Claim website ownership
Traffic signals
Performance
Security headers
- HSTS ⓘ
- Content‑Security‑Policy ⓘ
- X‑Content‑Type‑Options ⓘ
- X‑Frame‑Options ⓘ
- Referrer‑Policy ⓘ
- Permissions‑Policy ⓘ
add_header X-Content-Type-Options "nosniff" always;
add_header X-Frame-Options "SAMEORIGIN" always;
add_header Referrer-Policy "strict-origin-when-cross-origin" always;
add_header Permissions-Policy "geolocation=(); microphone=(); camera=()" always;
v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc@citruscode.dev; ruf=mailto:dmarc@citruscode.dev; fo=1
Set-Cookie: name=value; Path=/; Secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax
dps_site_id=ap-southeast-1
Essentials
Threat insight
- Missing key security headers leaves the site vulnerable to clickjacking, MIME sniffing, and data leakage.
- If DMARC is absent or set to p=none, protection against sender spoofing is weak. Consider quarantine/reject policies.
The risk score of this site is calculated by combining browser security headers, SSL status, mixed content, email domain protection (SPF/DMARC), redirect/obfuscation patterns, and the results of Google Safe Browsing and WebRisk. There are currently few clear signs of malicious behavior, but insufficient security headers or email protection can increase the risk of phishing or man‑in‑the‑middle attacks. Before entering important information, re‑check the domain spelling and how you reached the site (ads, DMs, shortened URLs, etc.). Before entering payment or personal information, verify operator information (company/contact), HTTPS enforcement, DMARC/TLS‑RPT, and check for mixed content.
User scenarios
If you make a payment on this site
No strong malicious signs were found, but online payments always carry some risk. Double-check the amount, payee and refund policy before you pay. Missing or weak DMARC lets attackers send spoofed payment emails. Type the domain manually instead of clicking links in unexpected messages.
If you log in or enter personal data
No clear malicious patterns were found, but treat passwords and 2FA codes as highly sensitive. Avoid reusing passwords across sites. Missing cookie security attributes or cross-domain POST forms can make sessions easier to steal or misuse. After logging in, watch for unusual account or billing activity.
Server location ⓘ
History
Change ⓘ --Recently added sites
Reviews
Average - / total 0
Checksum b8a71b50b8c47afb04b994646a6b9d37301b4f27f7ce3bc9fdfe9809959740d4