Skip to main content

Is into.org a Scam? Security Check Results - into.org Reviews

into.org favicon

Is into.org Safe? Security Analysis for Promoting the conservation and enhancement of the cultural and natural heritage of all nations for the benefit of the people of the world. | The International National Trusts Organisation (INTO)

Check if into.org is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

Analyzed 8/1/2025Completed 4:31:28 AM
41
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI analysis incomplete. Run a Rescan to get comprehensive AI-powered insights including business intelligence, technology detection, and security observations.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

50/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Missing Referrer-Policy header

LOW

Controls referrer information sent with requests

Missing Permissions-Policy header

MEDIUM

Controls browser features and APIs

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

65/100
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

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, banking, digital

📧Email Security

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

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

60/100
Score

No DKIM record found

MEDIUM

DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

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

No email authentication configured

CRITICAL

Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

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

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

52/100
Score

Weak Protocols Supported

HIGH

Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

OCSP Stapling Not Enabled

LOW

OCSP stapling improves performance and privacy

Certificate Transparency Not Implemented

LOW

Certificate is not logged in Certificate Transparency logs

SSL Certificate Expires Within 90 Days

MEDIUM

SSL certificate expires in 84 days

Weak SSL Key Length

HIGH

SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

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 Disabled

📊DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment.

DNS Health

DNS configuration and security assessment

55/100
Score

Unregistered MX Record

HIGH

MX record points to unregistered domain: f3obvig6cwaxz5yu2jbg56bvckdn4uuqvqqdlrftc6tpojlxxtza.mx-verification.google.com

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

No DMARC Record

MEDIUM

DMARC policy not configured

Domain Registration Details

Domain Age
29 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
low(243 days)
Protection Level
basicDNSSEC OFF

DNS Records

A Records:35.246.120.78
Name Servers:
dns1.iwantmyname.com
dns2.iwantmyname.com
dns3.iwantmyname.com
MX Records:
10: alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
1: aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
15: f3obvig6cwaxz5yu2jbg56bvckdn4uuqvqqdlrftc6tpojlxxtza.mx-verification.google.com
SOA:Serial: 2025052702, TTL: 3600s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:88ms

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis.

Network Security

Port scanning and network exposure analysis

40/100
Score

Service Exposed: SSH

MEDIUM

Port 22 (SSH) is publicly accessible - SSH - Secure but can be brute-forced

Analyze Another Website