VirusTotal
5 / 94 engine detections
보고서 열기“US FCITP | Government & Private Sector Partnership”
fcitp.online — 콘텐츠를 사용할 수 없음. 사기 유형: Brand Impersonation. 증거 요약: VirusTotal 5/94 (ADMINUSLabs, alphaMountain.ai, CyRadar, Forcepoint ThreatSeeker, Fortinet); URLQuery 1 alert; PhishDestroy score 78/100. 등록기관: PDR.
원본 포렌식 기록을 보존하기 위해 아래의 상세 PhishDestroy AI 분석은 영어로 유지됩니다.
5 / 94 engine detections
보고서 열기1 threat-system alert
보고서 열기checked — no match recorded
no community references
보고서 열기12 확인됨 — 차단 없음
Scan report
보고서 열기No threat flag
보고서 열기No malicious flag
보고서 열기Results reflect each source’s collection time. Zero detections do not guarantee safety. OTX references are community publications.
| Detection System | Indicator | Verdict | Alert |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNS4EU | fcitp.online |
malicious | Sinkholed |
PhishDestroy threat report
The domain fcitp.online was registered on 2026-04-08 through PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and hosts a site that returns HTTP 200 with the title “US FCITP | Government & Private Sector Partnership”. The site is served over TLS using a Let’s Encrypt certificate (R13) and resolves to 148.72.153.160, an address associated with a US‑based hosting provider (velia.net). Authoritative nameservers dns1.afeeshost.com, dns2.afeeshost.ltd, and dns3.afeeshost.com are in use. The domain appears on a single security blocklist and has been flagged by PhishDestroy. VirusTotal reports five of 94 scanners flagging the domain, and Gridinsoft assigns a trust score of 0/100, indicating high malicious confidence. The activity is classified as a brand‑impersonation generic phishing campaign. No additional technical artifacts such as malware payloads, redirect chains, or credential‑harvesting forms have been reported, so the exact phishing vector remains uncertain. Defenders should block the domain at DNS and web‑filter layers, monitor outbound connections to 148.72.153.160, and advise users that any requests to fcitp.online are likely fraudulent. Continuous monitoring for changes in DNS records, certificate updates, or new hosting infrastructure is recommended.
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.
dns3.afeeshost.comLocation describes the IP network.
104e1c66a32fc2dfde4518699d87a163b0c88de04f2f87f603711fe8be4dd7c5autodiscover.bentop.com.ngbentop.com.ngcpanel.bentop.com.ngcpcalendars.bentop.com.ngcpcontacts.bentop.com.ngelonmemes25.onlineghecit.onlinemail.bentop.com.ngmail.fcitp.onlinemail.ghecit.onlinemail.noxmc.onlinemail.vasklogistics.onlinemail.zebraexpressdelivery.onlinenoxmc.onlinevasklogistics.onlinewebdisk.bentop.com.ngwebmail.bentop.com.ngwww.bentop.com.ngwww.fcitp.onlinewww.ghecit.onlinewww.noxmc.onlinewww.vasklogistics.onlinewww.zebraexpressdelivery.onlinezebraexpressdelivery.onlineSaved certificate metadata. Certificate dates without a timezone are shown as stored. Transport encryption does not establish that the site is trustworthy.
Hostnames retained in the domain record or Certificate Transparency cache. A hostname alone does not establish current availability or malicious activity.
mail.fcitp.onlineDomain recordwww.fcitp.onlineDomain recordThe original observation time is not recorded for these hostnames.
Google PageSpeed Insights — mobile performance audit of fcitp.online · checked Apr 8, 2026
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='fcitp.online', port=80): Max retries exceeded with url: / (Caused by NewConnectionError("S
fcitp.online
Dated changes retained by the monitor and source collectors. Newest observations appear first; source states are not proof of a takedown.
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
알 수 없음→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
접속 가능→이용 불가
5/94 engine detections
View sourceNo threat flag
View sourcefcitp.online
View sourcePD-20260408-983B59
커뮤니티 구성원 1명이 신고 · 최초 확인 2026년 4월 8일
PD-20260408-983B59 Recipient: abuse@velia.net 계정 자격 증명, 개인 정보 또는 결제 정보를 입력했거나 이 도메인에서 파일을 다운로드한 경우 즉시 조치를 취하세요. 다음은 사건을 신고하고 자신을 보호하는 데 도움이 되는 리소스입니다.
공식 사이버 범죄 연락처 또는 불만사항 초안 작성 →를 받으려면 국가를 선택하세요.
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 ↗
fcitp.online)비록 모든 세부 사항을 알지 못하더라도 — 어쨌든 신고를 하세요. 부분적인 정보라도 수사에 도움이 됩니다.
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
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.