www.ocm.systems was observed on 2026-07-12 and is classified as a high‑risk generic phishing domain. The site resolves to the IPv4 address 82.25.96.230, returns HTTP 200, and displays the page title “OCM — Open Compute Mastery | Decentralized AI & Compute”. Its TLS certificate is issued by Let’s Encrypt (identifier YE2), which may provide a veneer of legitimacy for unsuspecting victims.
Infrastructure analysis shows the domain is registered through Hostinger operations, UAB, and relies on the default parking nameservers ns1.dns-parking.com and ns2.dns-parking.com. The IP address maps to Germany and belongs to AS47583 Hostinger International Limited, a provider whose shared hosting environment is frequently abused for short‑lived malicious sites. Mail exchangers are mx1.hostinger.com (priority 5) and mx2.hostinger.com (priority 10), indicating that the domain can also be used for email‑based credential harvesting.
Threat intelligence indicates the domain is blocked by PhishDestroy and appears on one public security blocklist. VirusTotal scans report that 2 of 95 security vendors flagged the domain, and Gridinsoft assigns a trust score of 0 / 100, reinforcing the malicious assessment. Although the blocklist footprint is limited, the combination of a low trust score, vendor detections, and active blocking suggests ongoing abusive activity.
Defenders should treat www.ocm.systems as malicious. Immediate actions include adding the domain and its IP 82.25.96.230 to network deny lists, configuring email gateways to reject messages from its MX hosts, and monitoring DNS queries for the associated nameservers. SOC teams should also correlate authentication attempts against services that may be targeted by the phishing campaign, consider sinkholing the domain to disrupt attacker traffic, and maintain continuous re‑evaluation as the site remains active and could evolve its payloads.
Extracted from stored page analysis
Observed indicators
0 wallet · 1 Telegram
Full extracted values, their blockchain and collection source. An address found in page content does not establish who controls it.
DOM Analysisanalyzed 2026年6月23日score 71/1007 brand signals
IoC Extractionscanned 2026年7月29日0 wallet · 1 Telegram IoC
Submitted URLhttps://www.ocm.systems/
Favicon Hash
ケース ID
ICANN OVERSIGHT
認定と RAA の背景
Registrar accreditation and DNS abuse obligations
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.
Certificate fingerprint60d2d1acc757c69c42b1f5d97afff93c21517576ef1e0ff4f0d22c827e11afbcCertificate names · 1 SANs
ocm.systems
Saved certificate metadata. Certificate dates without a timezone are shown as stored. Transport encryption does not establish that the site is trustworthy.
Primary outcomeDNS 非アクティブreason: DNS NXDOMAIN80% confidence
Attributionsource: Dns Cache
Evidence layersAvailability: DNS inactiveContent: UnreachableDNS: NXDOMAINRegistration: Unknown
Latest HTTP observation不明Probe Inconclusive20%2026-10-19 01:00:16 UTC
RDAP registration不明
Observed timelinelast reachable: 2026-09-15 22:18:17 UTCcurrent episode first observed: 2026-09-30 16:26:51 UTCobserved RIP window: 2026-09-15 22:18:17 UTC → 2026-09-30 16:26:51 UTC · 354.14hmidpoint estimate ≈ 2026-09-23 07:22:34 UTC · precision low · basis bounded
Availability, content, DNS and registration are independent evidence layers. NXDOMAIN, an unreachable origin or missing content alone does not prove registrar action. A registrar or provider is credited only when a direct technical marker identifies that actor. Report causality is shown separately.
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='ocm.systems', port=80): Max retries exceeded with url: / (Caused by NewConnectionError("SO
ocm.systems
保存済みの結果
Cloaked / Filtered
Stored observation history11
Dated changes retained by the monitor and source collectors. Newest observations appear first; source states are not proof of a takedown.
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)
