Is invideo.ru a scam site? Scam, spam & reviews
Scores & key points
Caution signals ⓘ
- [Low] Without SPF/DMARC, email sender spoofing risk is increased.
Reputation
Review summary — invideo.ru
Overall 81 (Mostly safe)Multiple security indicators are favorable and there are few major risk signals.
Strengths
- Valid SSL/TLS certificate
- HSTS enabled
- SPF configured
- Domain age ≥ 1 year
Weaknesses
- CSP not set
- DMARC not configured
Detailed review — invideo.ru
Domain review
Domain created: 2020-01-29T14:04:57Z (≈ 5y 9m). Registrar: REGRU-RU. Hosting / AS: INSYS-AS INSYS ISP, RU — Russia. Popularity: Tranco #929318, OPR 2.13/10. Reputation: GSB clean WebRisk clean. Email security: SPF On, DMARC None. Certificate valid until: 2026-01-23T18:21:36+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 INSYS-AS INSYS ISP, RU. HSTS Off (preload: Unknown). Applies 1/6 security headers. DNSSEC Off. Email security: SPF On, DMARC None. MTA‑STS policy: None. TLS‑RPT Off. security.txt: available (https://invideo.ru/.well-known/security.txt). JS obfuscation score 0. Reputation: GSB clean, WebRisk clean → overall Good.
Explanation — strengths and stability
Age: about (≈ 5y 9m) (created on 2020-01-29T14:04:57Z).
GSB clean
WebRisk clean
Certificate valid until: 2026-01-23T18:21:36+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
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.
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: 2025-11-18 12:24:13
Claim website ownership
Performance
Security headers
- HSTS ⓘ
- Content‑Security‑Policy ⓘ
- X‑Content‑Type‑Options ⓘ
- X‑Frame‑Options ⓘ
- Referrer‑Policy ⓘ
- Permissions‑Policy ⓘ
add_header Content-Security-Policy "default-src 'self'; img-src 'self' data:; object-src 'none'; base-uri 'self'";
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@invideo.ru; ruf=mailto:dmarc@invideo.ru; fo=1
Essentials
Threat insight
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Server location ⓘ
History
Change ⓘ --Recently added sites
Reviews
Average - / total 0
Checksum 5cf04a6f81bcc430a4f0b43db7c27c8f46449896768e0bd50d4eb9cfe2f55ea6
Analyzing
Collecting various signals and public data.
- Start
- Fetch DNS / WHOIS
- Check HTTP response
- Verify SSL/TLS
- Query reputation
- Collect PageSpeed data
- Analyze security headers
- Check email security
- Integrate extended signals
- Build report