Skip to main content

Is better.fyi a Scam? Security Check Results - Better Reviews

better.fyi favicon

Is better.fyi Safe? Security Analysis for Better

Check if better.fyi is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

TechnologyN/asmall
HTML5CSS3JavaScriptZepto.jsjQuery Peity+2 more
Analyzed 9/6/2025Completed 12:17:14 PM
62
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

Better was a privacy-focused software tool designed for Safari users on Apple devices, operating from 2016 until its discontinuation in 2021. It provided protection against behavioral ads and tracking, serving a niche audience of privacy-conscious users. The website now serves as a memorial and informational resource maintained by the Small Technology Foundation, highlighting the legacy and ongoing advocacy for a better web. Technically, the site uses standard web technologies including JavaScript libraries like Zepto and Magnific Popup, and is hosted as an archived snapshot by the Internet Archive. The site is well-structured with clear navigation and good mobile optimization but lacks modern security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Security posture is moderate with no forms or sensitive data exposure, but the absence of WHOIS data and security policies limits trust. Overall, the site is safe, professional, and trustworthy as an informational resource but no longer an active service.

Detected Technologies

HTML5CSS3JavaScriptZepto.jsjQuery PeityMagnific PopupRuffle (Flash emulator)

🧠AI Business Intelligence

Technology stack, business insights, and market analysis powered by AI.

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Better occupied a specialized market segment focused on privacy tools for Safari users, with a modest but loyal user base. Its business model was based on software distribution via Apple’s app stores, now discontinued. The partnership ecosystem includes the Small Technology Foundation and 1Blocker, which offers a migration path for former users. The website content is consistent and professional, supporting the brand's privacy advocacy mission. Revenue streams are no longer active, and the project is maintained as a non-profit legacy. The company’s market presence is limited but respected within privacy circles, with strategic partnerships enhancing its credibility.

Extracted Contact Information

Marketing Intelligence Data

Email Addresses (1)

s*****@1blocker.com

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website demonstrates a basic security maturity level appropriate for a static informational site. No active data collection or forms reduce attack surface. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options is a gap. No incident response or security policy information is published. WHOIS data is unavailable, which reduces domain trustworthiness. GDPR compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with standard web security best practices and transparency.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement standard security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to improve site security.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

Better

Description:

Better was a privacy tool for Safari on iPhone, iPad, and Mac that protected users from behavioral ads and tracking companies. It operated from June 3, 2016 to December 15, 2021. The project is now defunct and maintained in memory by the Small Technology Foundation.

Key Services:
Privacy protection from trackers and behavioral ads on Safari
Content Quality:

good

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
HTML5CSS3JavaScriptZepto.jsjQuery PeityMagnific PopupRuffle (Flash emulator)
Platforms:
Safari on iOSSafari on Mac
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
70/100
Best Practices:
  • No forms collecting sensitive data
  • No exposed credentials or sensitive data in HTML

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
archive.org internal analytics
Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:good

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:excellent

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:good
User Experience:good
Content Relevance:good
Navigation Clarity:good
Professionalism:good
Trustworthiness:high

Key Observations

1

Website is a memorial/archive for a discontinued privacy tool.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

40/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

MEDIUM

Prevents MIME type sniffing

Missing X-XSS-Protection header

MEDIUM

Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

Weak Referrer-Policy configuration

LOW

Current value: "no-referrer-when-downgrade"

Sensitive data may be cached

LOW

Cache-Control header should include "no-store" for sensitive pages

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

53/100
Score

No Cookie Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

No Cookie Consent Banner found

HIGH

GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

No Data Protection Officer mentioned

LOW

Large organizations may need to designate a DPO under GDPR

Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

MEDIUM

Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy85% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
emailphone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

2/100
Score

No information security framework found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity and information security measures

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

No security policy documentation found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented cybersecurity governance and risk management

No incident response procedures found

HIGH

NIS2 requires documented incident response and business continuity plans

No business continuity planning found

MEDIUM

NIS2 emphasizes operational resilience and business continuity

No security contact information

HIGH

NIS2 requires clear incident reporting channels

No vulnerability reporting mechanism

MEDIUM

Clear vulnerability reporting supports coordinated disclosure

No NIS2 reference found

LOW

Consider explicitly mentioning NIS2 compliance efforts

Critical sector without clear security compliance

HIGH

Detected sectors: transport, digital

📧Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation and email security assessment.

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

75/100
Score

DMARC not enforcing

MEDIUM

DMARC policy is set to "none"

No BIMI Record

LOW

BIMI displays brand logos in email clients

No MTA-STS Policy

MEDIUM

MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

No TLS-RPT Record

LOW

TLS-RPT provides reporting for email TLS issues

SPF
Sender Policy Framework
DKIM
DomainKeys Identified Mail
DMARC
Domain-based Message Authentication
MX Records
Mail Exchange Records
BIMI
Brand Indicators
MTA-STS
Mail Transfer Agent Security
TLS-RPT
TLS Reporting
DNSSEC
DNS Security
SPF Details
Record:
v=spf1 a mx ip4:207.241.224.6/32 ip4:207.241.224.2/32 a:bromkins.net include:spf.braintreegateway.com include:_spf.salesforce.com include:_spf.google.com -all
DNS Lookups:6/10
Policy:-all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:k2(1416-bit rsa)
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:noc@archive.org

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

82/100
Score

Weak Protocols Supported

HIGH

Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

Certificate Transparency Not Implemented

LOW

Certificate is not logged in Certificate Transparency logs

Partial SSL/TLS Assessment

LOW

Completed 3 of 4 security checks due to time constraints

Protocol Support

TLSv1.3TLSv1.2TLSv1.1

OCSP Status

OCSP Stapling Enabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

75/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

Domain Delete Lock Not Enabled

LOW

Domain can be deleted without additional verification

DMARC Policy Set to None

LOW

DMARC is configured but not enforcing any policy

Domain Registration Details

Domain Age
29 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
none(1923 days)
Protection Level
moderateDNSSEC OFF

DNS Records

A Records:207.241.224.2
Name Servers:
ns-global.kjsl.com
ns0036.secondary.cloudflare.com
ns0208.secondary.cloudflare.com
ns1.archive.org
ns2.archive.org
ns3.archive.org
MX Records:
100: mail.archive.org
SOA:Serial: 2025090502, TTL: 600s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:40ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 a mx ip4:207.241.224.6/32 ip4:207.241.224.2/32 a:bromkins.net include:spf.braintreegateway.com include:_spf.salesforce.com include:_spf.google.com -all

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

100/100
Score

Good Network Security Posture

LOW

No unnecessary services detected on common risky ports

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website is built with standard HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, leveraging lightweight libraries such as Zepto.js and Magnific Popup for UI enhancements. It uses Ruffle to support legacy Flash content. The site is mobile-optimized and has good SEO metadata including Open Graph tags. Hosting is via the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, indicating the site is no longer actively maintained on a dedicated server. Performance is moderate given the archival context. No CMS or modern frameworks detected. Accessibility is basic but navigation is clear and consistent. Technical debt is low due to static nature but modernization opportunities exist if the project is revived.
Analyze Another Website