VirusTotal
3 / 95 engine detections
Mở báo cáo“Axxel Plesk”
protocol-v4-aave.limited — Nội dung không có sẵn. Mạo danh thương hiệu: Aave; Loại lừa đảo: Crypto Scam. Tóm tắt bằng chứng: VirusTotal 3/95 (Fortinet, Seclookup, SOCRadar); PhishDestroy score 65/100. Nhà đăng ký: Atak Domain.
Phân tích chi tiết của PhishDestroy AI bên dưới được giữ bằng tiếng Anh để bảo toàn hồ sơ pháp chứng gốc.
3 / 95 engine detections
Mở báo cáono community references
Mở báo cáoprovider verdict: clean
Mở báo cáoNo threat flag
Mở báo cáoNo malicious flag
Mở báo cáoResults reflect each source’s collection time. Zero detections do not guarantee safety. OTX references are community publications.
AI-assisted evidence review
The domain protocol-v4-aave.limited was registered on 12 October 2025 through Atak Domain. Infrastructure analysis shows it resolves to the IPv4 address 196.251.66.67, which is geolocated to the Netherlands. The domain is hosted on nameservers ns1.plesk.axxel1.com and ns2.plesk.axxel1.com, and the web server returns the page title “Axxel Plesk”. No TLS certificate is presented, indicating the site operates without HTTPS. The site is classified as a crypto‑related brand impersonation campaign targeting Aave, as indicated by the “Impersonates: Aave” label and the “Crypto Scam” tag.
The domain appears on a single security blocklist and is actively blocked by PhishDestroy. VirusTotal analysis recorded three positive detections out of ninety‑five scanners, confirming malicious activity. Gridinsoft assigns a trust score of 0 out of 100, reinforcing the low reputation. Because the site is currently taken offline, content analysis is limited to the page title; the exact phishing landing page or credential‑stealing mechanisms have not been observed. No Safe Browsing, OTX, or additional blocklist entries are reported, leaving the broader distribution network unknown.
Defenders should add protocol‑v4‑aave.limited and its resolving IP 196.251.66.67 to deny lists across perimeter and endpoint controls. Monitoring of the associated nameservers and the Atak Domain registrar for new domains with similar naming patterns is advised. Given the absence of TLS, any attempt to serve content over HTTPS would be a clear indicator of a shift in tactics. Continuous re‑scanning with multi‑engine services is recommended to capture any future changes.
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.
ns1.plesk.axxel1.comns2.plesk.axxel1.comLocation describes the IP network.
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='protocol-v4-aave.limited', port=80): Max retries exceeded with url: / (Caused by NewConnec
protocol-v4-aave.limited
Dated changes retained by the monitor and source collectors. Newest observations appear first; source states are not proof of a takedown.
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
Không rõ→dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
dns_inactive
dns_nxdomain
https://radar.cloudflare.com/scan/cce24208-9598-4e7b-bdc5-b0f3b4287c08
3/95 engine detections
View sourcePage captured
View sourceNo threat flag
View sourceprotocol-v4-aave.limited
View source95 tên miền tương tự đã lưu
Được 1 thành viên cộng đồng báo cáo; ghi nhận lần đầu 13/10/2025
Listed domains receive at least one abuse report; this entry has no retained notification history.
Nếu bạn đã nhập thông tin xác thực tài khoản, thông tin cá nhân hoặc thông tin thanh toán hoặc đã tải xuống tệp từ miền này, hãy hành động ngay lập tức. Dưới đây là các nguồn lực giúp bạn báo cáo vụ việc và bảo vệ chính mình.
Chọn quốc gia của bạn để nhận liên hệ tội phạm mạng chính thức hoặc soạn thảo đơn khiếu nại →.
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 ↗
protocol-v4-aave.limited)Dù bạn chưa nắm rõ tất cả các chi tiết — vẫn nên nộp báo cáo. Ngay cả những thông tin không đầy đủ cũng vẫn có ích cho công tác điều tra.
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
Phân tích mối đe dọa bằng cách sử dụng danh sách chặn được lưu trữ, WHOIS, DNS và bằng chứng quét công khai
Quét ngayHãy gửi các tên miền đáng ngờ đến cơ sở dữ liệu mối đe dọa của chúng tôi — để bảo vệ cộng đồng
Báo cáoCác báo cáo lừa đảo gần đây và những thay đổi về tính khả dụng được quan sát thấy
Theo dõiTheo dõi các mối đe dọa đang diễn ra hoặc phản đối danh sách này nếu bạn cho rằng đây là kết quả báo động sai
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.