Skip to main content

Is mziq.com a Scam? Security Check Results - mziq.com Reviews

mziq.com favicon

Is mziq.com Safe? Security Analysis for MZiQ - Web

Check if mziq.com is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

OtherN/asmall
Google Tag ManagerHotjarAWS DNS
Analyzed 9/5/2025Completed 9:24:44 PM
61
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

MZiQ appears to be a technology-oriented website with minimal visible content on the homepage. The site uses modern analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Hotjar, indicating an interest in user behavior tracking and marketing insights. The domain is well established, created in 2012, and hosted on AWS infrastructure, suggesting a stable technical foundation. However, the lack of visible business information, contact details, and privacy or cookie policies limits the transparency and trustworthiness of the site from a user perspective. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but lacking DNSSEC and security headers. Overall, the site is functional but could benefit from enhanced compliance and transparency measures.

Detected Technologies

Google Tag ManagerHotjarAWS DNS

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

The website does not provide explicit business descriptions or company details in the accessible HTML content. The domain age and hosting setup imply a legitimate business presence, likely in the technology or digital services sector. The use of advanced tracking tools suggests a focus on data-driven marketing or SaaS offerings. Absence of contact information and policies may indicate a site under development or a portal requiring login for full access. No partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the data provided.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The security posture is moderate. HTTPS is enabled, but DNSSEC is not configured, and no security headers were detected in the provided data. The site uses third-party analytics scripts which should be regularly audited for vulnerabilities. No incident response or security policy information is available, which is a gap for compliance and trust. The domain registration status flags provide protection against unauthorized changes, enhancing domain security. Overall, the site would benefit from implementing security best practices such as security headers, DNSSEC, and publishing security policies.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Content Quality:

basic

Branding:

moderate

Technical Stack

Technologies:
Google Tag ManagerHotjarAWS DNS
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

basic

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

basic

Security Assessment

Security Score:
50/100

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
Google AnalyticsHotjar
Tracking Level:moderate
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Tracking Pixels:
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)Hotjar
Marketing Tools:
Hotjar
Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

Design Quality:basic
User Experience:basic
Content Relevance:poor
Navigation Clarity:poor
Professionalism:basic
Trustworthiness:moderate

Key Observations

1

Website content is minimal with no visible privacy or cookie policies.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

65/100
Score

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

35/100
Score

No Privacy Policy found

HIGH

GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

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

Third-party services without privacy policy

HIGH

Detected services: Google Analytics, Google APIs

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy0% confidence
Cookie Policy0% confidence
Contact Information Found90% confidence
phone

🛡️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 ip4:168.245.1.84 ip4:168.245.47.102 ip4:168.245.24.64 ip4:159.183.146.162 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:_spf.google.com -all
DNS Lookups:2/10
Policy:-all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:s1(1440-bit rsa)
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:dmarc-reports@mzgroup.com

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

72/100
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 85 days

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

80/100
Score

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

DMARC Policy Set to None

LOW

DMARC is configured but not enforcing any policy

Domain Registration Details

Domain Age
13 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
low(117 days)
Protection Level
strongDNSSEC OFF

DNS Records

A Records:3.174.113.34, 3.174.113.73, 3.174.113.124, 3.174.113.15
Name Servers:
ns-1522.awsdns-62.org
ns-1762.awsdns-28.co.uk
ns-356.awsdns-44.com
ns-979.awsdns-58.net
MX Records:
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
1: aspmx.l.google.com
SOA:Serial: 1, TTL: 86400s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:158ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 ip4:168.245.1.84 ip4:168.245.47.102 ip4:168.245.24.64 ip4:159.183.146.162 include:spf.protection.outlook.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 uses modern JavaScript bundles loaded from its own domain and employs Google Tag Manager and Hotjar for analytics and user behavior tracking. Hosting is inferred to be on AWS due to DNS servers. The site is mobile responsive at a basic level but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Performance is moderate with asynchronous script loading. No CMS or frameworks are explicitly detected. The minimal HTML content suggests either a single-page application or a portal requiring authentication. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist in security and compliance implementations.
Analyze Another Website