invitation-meetings[.]com

Assessment
Stored evidence for invitation-meetings.com: VirusTotal recorded 5 detections among 91 scanners on 2026-08-10. That ratio reproduces the stored check in its original units and is not converted into another measure. MetaMask and SEAL appear as named external blocklist observations for invitation-meetings.com. Each item in this report remains at the scope supplied by its dated source record.

Detection Evidence
VirusTotal records 5 detections among 91 scanners in the stored snapshot dated 2026-08-10. The numerator describes scanners that produced detections, while the denominator describes scanners included in that check. The reverse order would materially alter the stored result. The VirusTotal snapshot dated 2026-08-10 supplies no common rationale covering the included scanners, and this report adds none. A later VirusTotal snapshot may contain different values, so any comparison should preserve the exact ratio and date of each snapshot.

Source Context
MetaMask and SEAL are recorded as named external blocklist observations for invitation-meetings.com in the snapshot dated 2026-08-10. The stored MetaMask and SEAL blocklist records supply names and entries, but they supply no shared method or common rationale. PhishDestroy’s catalogue also contains invitation-meetings.com as a publisher record. That PhishDestroy record is counted separately from the MetaMask and SEAL external blocklist observations. This separation keeps the origin of every entry visible and prevents a single stored item from being counted again under another source label.

Reachability and Timeline
The record first observed invitation-meetings.com on 2026-07-30. The MetaMask and SEAL blocklist snapshot is dated 2026-08-10 and remains a separate event in the stored timeline. A stored HTTP status 403 was observed for invitation-meetings.com on 2026-08-10. The HTTP status 403 dated 2026-08-10 records a single response for later comparison. Each timestamp qualifies only the adjacent observation in this timeline. Later collection results should be compared with these dated values without replacing the earlier snapshot.

Registration and Infrastructure
For invitation-meetings.com, the registrar field records HOSTINGER operations, UAB; this is kept as an exact source value. The source stores 172.67.192.131 as the observed address in this record. The SSL issuer is recorded as Google Trust Services / WE1 in the snapshot dated 2026-08-10. These fields preserve registration, network, and certificate context stored in this record. The report preserves each label and number as a separate source value instead of combining them into an invented aggregate. Keeping the fields separate leaves every infrastructure value traceable to the record that supplied it.

Conclusion
The invitation-meetings.com record states that VirusTotal recorded 5 detections among 91 scanners on 2026-08-10. MetaMask and SEAL remain named blocklist observations from the snapshot dated 2026-08-10. PhishDestroy remains a separate publisher catalogue entry in the stored record. For invitation-meetings.com, the registrar field records HOSTINGER operations, UAB; this remains separate from the other source fields. The observed address field in this record contains 172.67.192.131. The supported conclusion is bounded to the exact stored observations for invitation-meetings.com. Any statement beyond those source values would require additional dated material.

Recommended Actions
Avoid submitting sensitive information to invitation-meetings.com during review. Use a known service address obtained separately from this report for any necessary access. Defenders can retain invitation-meetings.com as an exact indicator and preserve relevant DNS, proxy, and endpoint records. Compare later VirusTotal snapshots and MetaMask and SEAL blocklist records with the dated values above instead of replacing them. Keep each later observation with its source date so changes remain visible during follow-up review. If a defensive rule is needed, keep its scope to invitation-meetings.com. The stored record does not justify extending that rule to 172.67.192.131 or to other infrastructure records.