VirusTotal
13 / 93 engine detections
فتح التقرير“Index of /”
تصيد: metahoper.digital — المحتوى غير متوفر. ملخص الأدلة: VirusTotal 13/93 (ADMINUSLabs, alphaMountain.ai, BitDefender, CyRadar, ESET); 1 external blocklist…
يبقى تحليل PhishDestroy AI المفصل أدناه باللغة الإنجليزية للحفاظ على السجل الجنائي الرقمي الأصلي.
13 / 93 engine detections
فتح التقرير5 community references
فتح التقريرNo threat flag
فتح التقريرNo malicious flag
فتح التقريرResults reflect each source’s collection time. Zero detections do not guarantee safety. OTX references are community publications.
PhishDestroy threat report
Analysis indicates that the domain metahoper.digital was registered on 21 February 2026 through Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. The authoritative name servers ns100.webnic.cc and ns101.webnic.cc resolve the name to the IPv4 address 185.208.156.66, which belongs to AS42624 (Global-Data System IT Corporation) and is geolocated in Switzerland. The site is presently taken offline, and its SSL certificate is identified only as “R10”, offering no meaningful validation of the host’s identity. Gridinsoft assigns a trust score of 0 out of 100, reflecting a complete lack of confidence in the domain.
VirusTotal records show that 13 of 93 scanning engines flag the host as malicious, reinforcing the suspicion of abuse. The domain appears on two external blocklists and has been incorporated into five AlienVault OTX threat pulses, indicating that it has been observed in multiple intelligence sources. Defensive products PhishDestroy and CryptoFirewall have already listed the domain as blocked. The page title returned by HTTP requests is “Index of /”, which does not disclose any brand or service being spoofed, and no additional content analysis is available.
Consequently, the specific victim‑targeted brand, if any, cannot be confirmed at this time. The combination of low trust score, multiple vendor detections, blocklist presence, and OTX citations suggests a high likelihood that the domain was used for a generic phishing campaign, possibly to harvest credentials or deliver malicious payloads. Defenders should ensure that any outbound connections to 185.208.156.66 are denied, add metahoper.digital to DNS sinkhole or blocklist policies, and monitor for any login attempts or data exfiltration attempts that reference the domain. Continuous re‑evaluation is recommended in case the site is re‑activated, and any associated payloads should be submitted to sandbox environments for deeper analysis.
Last checked
For this gTLD, the registrar above operates under an ICANN accreditation agreement. The links below provide the official fee schedule and current DNS abuse compliance guidance.
RAA §3.18 establishes abuse-contact and handling requirements. This report can document stored outbound notices and later technical observations; it does not by itself establish receipt, investigation, remediation, or contractual non-compliance.
ns101.webnic.ccLocation describes the IP network.
Saved certificate metadata. Certificate dates without a timezone are shown as stored. Transport encryption does not establish that the site is trustworthy.
An estimated time describes an observation window. It does not prove a registrar action or the exact moment a site became unavailable.
Compare what a browser and a crawler receive, and check for Keitaro traffic routing.
unavailable: raw=connection_error; http=0; via=http_proxy; error=SOCKSHTTPConnectionPool(host='metahoper.digital', port=80): Max retries exceeded with url: / (Caused by NewConnectionErr
metahoper.digital
Dated changes retained by the monitor and source collectors. Newest observations appear first; source states are not proof of a takedown.
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
غير معروف→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
13/93 engine detections
View sourcePage captured
View sourceNo threat flag
View source5 community references
View sourcemetahoper.digital
View sourceأبلغ عنه عضو واحد في المجتمع؛ شوهد أول مرة في 10/08/2025
Listed domains receive at least one abuse report; this entry has no retained notification history.
إذا أدخلت بيانات اعتماد الحساب أو المعلومات الشخصية أو معلومات الدفع أو قمت بتنزيل ملف من هذا النطاق، فاتخذ إجراءً فوريًا. فيما يلي موارد لمساعدتك في الإبلاغ عن الحادث وحماية نفسك.
حدد بلدك للحصول على الاتصالات الرسمية المتعلقة بالجرائم الإلكترونية أو إنشاء مسودة شكوى →.
Template-based draft · optional AI wording assistance requires separate consent
Choose the steps that match what you shared. Keep a copy of this report alongside your own records.
Stop using the suspicious site. Open the real service through its official app or an address you already trust.
Keep original emails, receipts, messages and screenshots in a secure place. A factual timeline helps the receiving authority understand what happened. IC3 evidence guidance ↗
metahoper.digital)حتى لو لم تكن جميع التفاصيل متوفرة — تقديم بلاغ على أي حال. فحتى المعلومات الجزئية تساعد في التحقيقات.
A report is not a guarantee of recovery or investigation, but prompt, accurate transaction data can help authorities and service providers trace the incident.
Further guidance: NIST · phishing responseFBI IC3 · reports & evidenceFTC · recovery scams
تحليل التهديدات باستخدام قائمة الحظر المخزنة، وWHOIS، وDNS، وأدلة الفحص العامة
امسح الآنأرسل النطاقات المشبوهة إلى قاعدة بيانات التهديدات الخاصة بنا — ساهم في حماية المجتمع
إبلاغتقارير التصيد الاحتيالي الأخيرة وتغييرات التوفر الملحوظة
مراقبةراقب التهديدات في الوقت الفعلي أو اعترض على هذا الإدراج إذا كنت تعتقد أنه إنذار كاذب
This report combines saved page captures, registration and network records, scanner results and PhishDestroy reporting history. Each source keeps its own observation date. Open a source report to inspect the original result.
The AI-assisted analysis was written on . It describes the evidence available at that time; later source checks can change.
A capture documents what was shown. A scanner result records that provider’s assessment at the time of its check. Neither a valid certificate nor a zero-detection result is a guarantee of safety.