Analysis as of July 24, 2026 indicates that the domain www.claimrewards.my.id is currently offline but retains several indicators of malicious infrastructure associated with a crypto‑draining campaign. The domain resolves to the IP address 46.202.199.57, which is assigned to AS47583 Hostinger International Limited and located in the United States. Hosting under Hostinger is consistent with the registrar information showing registration through HOSTINGER operations, UAB. The domain uses the generic parking nameservers ns1.dns-parking.com and ns2.dns-parking.com, a configuration frequently observed in temporary phishing or scam sites. No TLS certificate is presented, meaning the site is served over plain HTTP, which further reduces trustworthiness.
The page title returned when the site was reachable was “Bot Verification”, a common placeholder used by automated scam kits to delay automated crawlers. Intelligence tags the site as employing an “Airdrop Scam” kit, a known vector for crypto‑drainer operations that trick victims into sending cryptocurrency to attacker‑controlled wallets. Gridinsoft assigned a trust score of 0 out of 100, indicating a complete lack of confidence in the domain’s legitimacy. VirusTotal scans reported six detections out of ninety‑five security vendors, and the domain appears on at least one external blocklist. PhishDestroy has also listed the domain as blocked.
These independent detections corroborate the classification of the site as a crypto‑draining threat. While the site is presently taken offline, the infrastructure components—hosted on a reputable provider but using parking nameservers, lacking encryption, and flagged by multiple security services—suggest that the domain was actively used for fraudulent cryptocurrency collection. Defenders should continue to block the domain at perimeter devices, monitor the associated IP address for any future reactivation, and include the nameservers in threat‑intel feeds.
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.
Accreditation is a contract, not a safety certification.
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.
An estimated time describes an observation window. It does not prove a registrar action or the exact moment a site became unavailable.
Check for cloaking
Compare what a browser and a crawler receive, and check for Keitaro traffic routing.
No cloaking flag in this check
unavailable: raw=connection_error; http=0; via=http_proxy; error=SOCKSHTTPConnectionPool(host='duplicate-disabled-11904.invalid', port=80): Max retries exceeded with url: / (Caused by N
Keep original emails, receipts, messages and screenshots in a secure place. A factual timeline helps the receiving authority understand what happened. IC3 evidence guidance ↗
Payment records — if you paid, save the receipt, amount, date, payment provider and recipient details.
Your bank or payment provider — contact its fraud team promptly through official contact details if money or card information was exposed.
地元の警察 — たとえ直ちに行動を起こせなくても、公式な記録が残される
A report is not a guarantee of recovery or investigation, but prompt, accurate transaction data can help authorities and service providers trace the incident.
詐欺による金銭の返還を装った詐欺 — fraudsters pose as recovery agents and demand upfront fees. Never share a seed phrase or pay before independently verifying the provider
About this reportSources, observation dates and corrections
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.
(LT)
