Is instapaper.com a scam site? Scam, spam & reviews
Scores & key points
Overview
"read later" web service and app
Caution signals ⓘ
- [Low] WHOIS information is masked/private.
- [Medium] Found 2 HTTP resources on an HTTPS page.
- [Low] Logos/icons are served from external hosts.
Reputation
Review summary — instapaper.com
Overall 98 (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
- DMARC configured
- Domain age ≥ 1 year
Weaknesses
Detailed review — instapaper.com
Domain review
Domain created: 2006-11-30T03:17:49Z (≈ 19y 1m). Registrar: TUCOWS DOMAINS, INC.. Hosting / AS: AMAZON-02, US — United States. Popularity: Tranco #5807, OPR 5.89/10. Reputation: GSB clean WebRisk clean. Email security: SPF On, DMARC None. Certificate valid until: 2027-01-20T23:59:59+00:00.
Shop / transaction review
No mixed content detected. Loads 2 HTTP resources (mixed content). 5 cases where logo/favicon are served from external hosts. Structured data: Organization Absent, contactPoint Absent. Hidden text ratio 0%.
Technical review
HTTP 200 Success · Server AMAZON-02, US. HSTS Off (preload: Unknown). Applies 3/6 security headers. DNSSEC Off. Email security: SPF On, DMARC None. MTA‑STS policy: None. TLS‑RPT Off. security.txt: not available. Mixed content 2 items. JS obfuscation score 0. Reputation: GSB clean, WebRisk clean → overall Good.
Explanation — strengths and stability
Age: about (≈ 19y 1m) (created on 2006-11-30T03:17:49Z).
GSB clean
WebRisk clean
Certificate valid until: 2027-01-20T23:59:59+00:00.
Email security: SPF On, DMARC none.
Applies 3/6 security headers.
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.
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 TLS‑RPT, it is harder to collect TLS failure signals and operational insight.
Without security.txt, the vulnerability disclosure channel is unclear and response may be delayed.
Mixed content increases the risk of eavesdropping and tampering. Standardize all resources on HTTPS.
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: 2026-01-03 09:15:16
Claim website ownership
Traffic signals
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 Referrer-Policy "strict-origin-when-cross-origin" always;
add_header Permissions-Policy "geolocation=(); microphone=(); camera=()" always;
Rewrite or update resource URLs to use HTTPS (e.g.,)
http://blog.instapaper.com</code>, <code>http://twitter.com/Instapaper
Domain lineage
-
2006-11-30Domain registered: 2006-11-30T03:17:49Z
Essentials
DMARC details
v=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc@team.instapaper.comv=DMARC1;p=none;rua=mailto:dmarc@team.instapaper.comThreat insight
- Without HSTS, downgrade and man‑in‑the‑middle attacks can weaken HTTPS enforcement. Enable HSTS and prepare for preload registration.
- Mixed content increases the risk of eavesdropping and tampering. Standardize all resources on HTTPS.
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)
Before entering payment or personal information, verify the site operator/contact, HTTPS enforcement (HSTS), and the presence of DMARC and TLS‑RPT.
User scenarios
If you make a payment on this site
Some technical or reputation signals suggest caution. Check the address bar, HTTPS and browser warnings before entering payment details. Mixed or non-encrypted (HTTP) resources or weak TLS can expose payment data or session tokens on some networks.
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.
Server location ⓘ
History
Change ⓘ --Recently added sites
Reviews
Average - / total 0
Checksum 97c365e22863c61f56d6561f46d75665b5b480f70c55af94b2708aff15940ca4
Social ⓘ
Platforms that this site may be using.