Is independent.co.uk a scam site? Scam, spam & reviews
Scores & key points
Overview
イギリスの全国的な日刊紙
+53 Show more languages
Caution signals ⓘ
- [Low] WHOIS information is masked/private.
- [Low] Cookie security attributes are insufficient (total 2).
Reputation
Review summary — independent.co.uk
Overall 90 (Mostly safe)Multiple security indicators are favorable and there are few major risk signals.
Strengths
- Valid SSL/TLS certificate
- CSP enabled
- SPF configured
- DMARC configured
Weaknesses
- HSTS not set
Detailed review — independent.co.uk
Domain review
Domain created: before Aug-1996. Hosting / AS: FASTLY, US — United States. Popularity: Tranco #395, OPR 7.05/10. Reputation: GSB clean WebRisk clean. Email security: SPF On, DMARC quarantine. Certificate valid until: 2026-05-19T19:56:37+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 301 Redirect · Server FASTLY, US. HSTS Off (preload: Unknown). Applies 5/6 security headers. DNSSEC Off. Email security: SPF On, DMARC quarantine. MTA‑STS policy: None. TLS‑RPT Off. security.txt: available (https://independent.co.uk/.well-known/security.txt). 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: 2026-05-19T19:56:37+00:00.
Email security: SPF On, DMARC quarantine.
Applies 5/6 security headers.
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
Without HSTS, downgrade and man‑in‑the‑middle attacks can weaken HTTPS enforcement. Enable HSTS and prepare for preload registration.
Without DNSSEC, trust relies solely on parent name servers and DNS tampering risks can be higher in some environments.
Without MTA‑STS, SMTP TLS enforcement is weaker.
Without TLS‑RPT, it is harder to collect TLS failure signals and operational insight.
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: 2025-12-03 09:30:30
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 Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=15552000; includeSubDomains; preload" always;
Set-Cookie: name=value; Path=/; Secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Lax
esi-permutive-id=(null)
Domain lineage
-
before AugDomain registered: before Aug-1996
Essentials
DMARC details
v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_a@dmgmedia.co.ukv=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc_a@dmgmedia.co.ukThreat insight
- Without HSTS, downgrade and man‑in‑the‑middle attacks can weaken HTTPS enforcement. Enable HSTS and prepare for preload registration.
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.
Deep scan (HTML / headers)
- Some cookie security attributes (Secure/HttpOnly/SameSite) are missing.
- The site heavily relies on third‑party resources.
For session/login cookies, always set Secure, HttpOnly, and SameSite.
Iframe hosts
Set‑Cookie (samples)
esi-permutive-id=(null); Path=/ ; Secure ;</code><br><code>Locale=AS</code><br><code>Locale=AS ; Path=/ ;</code><br><code>esi-permutive-id=(null); Path=/ ; Secure ;</code><br><code>Locale=AS ; Path=/ ;</code><br><code>gdpr=0 ; Path=/ ;</code><br><code>subscriber_origin=others ; Path=/ ;</code><br><code>_pc_subscriber_origin=others ; Path=/ ;</code><br><code>is_mobile_or_tablet=false ; Path=/ ; Secure ; Expires=Thu, 03 Dec 2026 09:30:30 GMT ;</code><br><code>esi-uuid=a7ee0611-90a9-4a72-a7fd-d692f74fd36c ; Path=/ ; Secure; HttpOnly; Expires=Thu, 03 Dec 2026 09:30:30 GMT ;
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.
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 a54eacc88ad84c791157b8f6530f4992af4136d2cc9daa6d2508ea5ee07d2dbe