Skip to main content

Is payload.de a Scam? Security Check Results - Payload Reviews

payload.de favicon

Is payload.de Safe? Security Analysis for Payload

Check if payload.de is a scam or legitimate. Free security scan and reviews.

TechnologyN/asmall
jQuery 3.4.1Ghost CMS 5.26Sodo SearchCSSJavaScript
Analyzed 9/6/2025Completed 6:32:52 AM
42
Security Score
HIGH RISK

AI Summary

Payload.de is a specialized service provider offering a unified RPC endpoint for the Ethereum blockchain to facilitate private transactions and bundle submissions. The service aggregates submissions to multiple well-known Ethereum relays, targeting blockchain developers and users requiring privacy in transaction processing. The website is professionally designed using the Ghost CMS platform and incorporates modern web technologies such as jQuery and external search libraries. The content is relevant, clear, and focused on the Ethereum ecosystem, with consistent branding and a moderate level of trust indicators including HTTPS and structured data. From a technical perspective, the site demonstrates a moderate performance profile with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. However, it lacks some security best practices such as security headers and explicit privacy and cookie policies. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating a minimal user tracking approach. The contact information is limited to a contact page without direct emails or phone numbers, which may impact user trust and support accessibility. Security posture is generally strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. The absence of security headers and formal security policies suggests room for improvement in hardening the site against common web threats. The WHOIS data shows a consistent domain registration with no privacy protection or suspicious patterns, supporting the legitimacy of the domain and its alignment with the business purpose. Overall, Payload.de presents a niche, technically competent service with a good security baseline but requires enhancements in privacy compliance and security policy transparency to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

Detected Technologies

jQuery 3.4.1Ghost CMS 5.26Sodo SearchCSSJavaScript

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Payload.de operates in the blockchain technology sector, focusing on Ethereum private transaction infrastructure. Its business model revolves around providing a common RPC endpoint that aggregates private transaction bundles and submits them to multiple relay services, positioning itself as a middleware service in the Ethereum ecosystem. The target customers are blockchain developers and users who require privacy and efficiency in transaction submission. The company maintains a lean online presence with limited direct contact information and no visible certifications or compliance statements. The partnership ecosystem includes recognized Ethereum relay services, enhancing its credibility and operational reach. Growth indicators are not explicit, but the technical sophistication and niche focus suggest a specialized market position with potential for expansion in blockchain privacy services.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website enforces HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communication. No security headers were detected in the provided data, which is a notable gap in security best practices. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, particularly regarding GDPR and other data protection regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly documented, which could hinder timely security issue resolution. The minimal user tracking and lack of analytics reduce privacy risks but also limit insights into user behavior. Overall, the security maturity is moderate with strengths in encryption and weaknesses in policy transparency and header implementation.

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

Company:

Payload

Description:

payload.de offers a common endpoint for the Ethereum blockchain to send private transactions and bundles. Built blocks are submitted to multiple Ethereum relays.

Key Services:
RPC endpoint for Ethereum private transactionsSubmission of built blocks to multiple relays
Content Quality:

good

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
jQuery 3.4.1Ghost CMS 5.26Sodo SearchCSSJavaScript
Frameworks:
Ghost CMS
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
85/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics & Tracking

Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:poor

Website Quality Assessment

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

Key Observations

1

Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

30/100
Score

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

Missing X-Content-Type-Options header

MEDIUM

Prevents MIME type sniffing

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

HIGH

Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

Missing X-XSS-Protection header

MEDIUM

Legacy XSS protection (deprecated but still recommended)

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

10/100
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

EU business without adequate privacy measures

CRITICAL

EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

Third-party services without privacy policy

HIGH

Detected services: Twitter

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

40/100
Score

No SPF record found

HIGH

SPF helps prevent email spoofing

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

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 32 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

60/100
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 Transfer Lock Not Enabled

MEDIUM

Domain can be transferred without authorization

Domain Delete Lock Not Enabled

LOW

Domain can be deleted without additional verification

No DMARC Record

MEDIUM

DMARC policy not configured

Domain Registration Details

Protection Level
none
Suspicious Indicators Detected
  • No domain protection locks enabled

DNS Records

A Records:157.90.128.227
Name Servers:
dns1.registrar-servers.com
dns2.registrar-servers.com
MX Records:
10: aspmx2.googlemail.com
10: aspmx3.googlemail.com
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
1: aspmx.l.google.com
SOA:Serial: 1673432695, TTL: 3601s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:46ms

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

🔧Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website is built on the Ghost CMS platform version 5.26, utilizing jQuery 3.4.1 and external libraries such as Sodo Search for enhanced search functionality. The site uses modern CSS and JavaScript with deferred script loading to optimize performance. The presence of canonical and Open Graph meta tags supports SEO and social media integration. Hosting details are not explicitly identified, but the use of standard registrar nameservers suggests conventional hosting arrangements. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness. There is no evidence of legacy or vulnerable libraries. Technical debt appears low, but the lack of security headers and privacy policies indicates areas for modernization and compliance improvements.
Analyze Another Website