Skip to main content

Is pixels.com a Scam? Security Check Results - Pixels Reviews

P

Is pixels.com Safe? Security Analysis for Pixels

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

E-commerceUnited Stateslarge
JavaScriptCSSHTML5Google Tag ManagerFacebook Pixel+1 more
Analyzed 9/5/2025Completed 2:53:06 AM
64
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

Pixels.com is a well-established e-commerce platform specializing in affordable wall art, apparel, home decor, and other products created by independent artists and global brands. The website boasts a large catalog with over 6 million images and supports a community of over 100,000 artists worldwide. The business operates globally with 16 manufacturing centers and emphasizes supporting living artists. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including JavaScript, CSS, Google Tag Manager, and Facebook Pixel for marketing and analytics. Hosting is via Amazon AWS, ensuring reliable infrastructure. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protections, though DNSSEC is not enabled. Privacy compliance is lacking as no privacy or cookie policies or consent mechanisms were found in the provided content. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and user-friendly, but could improve transparency and compliance with privacy regulations.

Detected Technologies

JavaScriptCSSHTML5Google Tag ManagerFacebook PixelSlick Slider

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Pixels holds a strong market position as one of the largest online art marketplaces, targeting consumers interested in art and independent artists seeking to sell their work. The business model is print-on-demand e-commerce, generating revenue through product sales and artist commissions. The platform's partnerships with iconic brands and a large artist base provide competitive advantages. Growth indicators include a large product catalog, global manufacturing footprint, and a long operational history since 2006. The company appears independent with no parent or subsidiaries listed. Strategic observations suggest opportunities to enhance privacy compliance and security disclosures to strengthen customer trust.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced, clientTransferProhibited domain status, and use of reputable hosting providers. However, the absence of DNSSEC and lack of published security policies or incident response contacts indicate areas for improvement. Tracking scripts are used responsibly but without explicit cookie consent, which may pose compliance risks. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The security score is good but could be enhanced by enabling DNSSEC, publishing security policies, and implementing cookie consent mechanisms.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

Pixels

Description:

Pixels is the place for affordable wall art, t-shirts, art prints, phone cases, and more from independent artists and global brands. All Pixels orders include a 30 day money-back guarantee and help support living artists all over the world.

Key Services:
Selling wall artSelling apparelSelling home decorPrint-on-demand manufacturingSupporting independent artists
Content Quality:

excellent

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
JavaScriptCSSHTML5Google Tag ManagerFacebook PixelSlick Slider
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
75/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel with async loading

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
Google Tag ManagerFacebook Pixel
Tracking Level:moderate
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Tracking Pixels:
Facebook Pixel
Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

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

Key Observations

1

Website is a large, professional e-commerce platform specializing in art and related products.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

45/100
Score

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

58/100
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

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
phone

🛡️NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive compliance assessment.

NIS2 Compliance

Network & Information Security Directive

17/100
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

📧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 mx a include:_spf.google.com ip4:207.150.195.0/24 ip4:207.150.192.0/24 -all
DNS Lookups:3/10
Policy:-all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:google(1296-bit rsa)
Selector:mail(1296-bit rsa)
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Subdomain Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:hbtznqi4@ag.dmarcian.com

🏆SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis.

SSL/TLS Security

Certificate validity and encryption analysis

77/100
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

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

DNSSEC Not Enabled

MEDIUM

DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

CAA Records Not Configured

LOW

Certificate Authority Authorization (CAA) records not found

Potential Subdomain Takeover

HIGH

Subdomain staging.pixels.com points to unregistered service staging-1482050140.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com

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
28 years(mature)
Expiry Risk
low(261 days)
Protection Level
basicDNSSEC OFF

DNS Records

A Records:99.83.205.165, 75.2.9.114
Name Servers:
ns-1382.awsdns-44.org
ns-1857.awsdns-40.co.uk
ns-367.awsdns-45.com
ns-661.awsdns-18.net
MX Records:
1: aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
10: aspmx3.googlemail.com
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
10: aspmx2.googlemail.com
SOA:Serial: 1, TTL: 86400s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:63ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 mx a include:_spf.google.com ip4:207.150.195.0/24 ip4:207.150.192.0/24 -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 a modern tech stack with JavaScript, CSS, and HTML5, supported by Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. Hosting is on Amazon AWS, providing scalability and reliability. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and uses slick slider for UI components. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO is supported by meta tags and Open Graph data. Technical risks include lack of DNSSEC and missing privacy compliance features. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.
Analyze Another Website