Skip to main content

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

R

Is reclaimhosting.com Safe? Security Analysis for Waiting for the redirectiron...

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

OtherN/asmall
Joomla 1.5WordPress 2.5
Analyzed 9/7/2025Completed 6:46:55 AM
52
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

The website reclaimhosting.com currently presents a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its main content, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or similar security mechanism, specifically BitNinja. This limits the ability to fully analyze the website's content and business information. The domain is registered since 2013 with a reputable registrar and has a long registration period, suggesting legitimacy. However, the visible HTML content reveals outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are unsupported and pose security risks. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found, nor is there any contact or business information visible on the page. The website's technical infrastructure appears to be hosted on AWS, inferred from the nameservers. Overall, the site shows poor content quality and minimal user experience due to the blocking mechanism and lack of visible content.

Detected Technologies

Joomla 1.5WordPress 2.5

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Due to the WAF challenge page, detailed business intelligence is limited. The domain age and registrar data suggest an established entity, but no explicit company name, business model, or sector information is available from the content. The presence of Joomla and WordPress meta tags indicates the site may have been built or managed using these CMS platforms, but the versions are outdated. No contact details, certifications, or trust indicators are present. The external link to BitNinja suggests a partnership or use of their security services. No advertising or analytics tools are detected, indicating minimal marketing or tracking activity.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website employs a security challenge page powered by BitNinja, indicating an active WAF or security protection layer. However, the lack of DNSSEC, absence of security headers in the HTML, and use of outdated CMS versions represent significant security concerns. No visible HTTPS enforcement or HSTS headers are detected in the provided content. The domain status clientTransferProhibited is a positive indicator against unauthorized domain transfers. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by updating CMS software, enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, and publishing clear security policies.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Generic Detected

Page shows a security check with automatic redirect and BitNinja security check banner, indicating WAF or security challenge blocking direct content access.

Analysis results may be incomplete. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com

Business Insights

Description:

Joomla!

Content Quality:

poor

Branding:

inconsistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
Joomla 1.5WordPress 2.5
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

basic

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

poor

Security Assessment

Security Score:
30/100
Best Practices:
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status
  • Use of BitNinja security check

Analytics & Tracking

Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Transparency Level:poor

Website Quality Assessment

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

Key Observations

1

Website content is blocked by a security check page with automatic redirect.

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

20/100
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 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

👤GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment under GDPR regulations.

GDPR Compliance

Privacy and data protection assessment

50/100
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

GDPR Compliance Analysis

Privacy Policy0% 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: energy, transport, digital

📧Email Security

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

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

65/100
Score

Complex SPF record

LOW

Too many include statements can cause lookup limits

DMARC not enforcing

MEDIUM

DMARC policy is set to "none"

No DMARC reporting

LOW

DMARC aggregate reports not configured

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 ip4:162.243.224.94 ip4:104.237.132.195 ip4:67.205.134.225 include:_spf.google.com include:spf.braintreegateway.com include:relay.mailchannels.net include:mail.zendesk.com include:mailgun.org ~all
DNS Lookups:5/10
Policy:~all
DKIM Selectors Found
Selector:default(1296-bit rsa)
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Subdomain Policy:none

🏆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 58 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

DNS Records

A Records:51.222.233.115
Name Servers:
ns-1076.awsdns-06.orgDNS only
ns-2023.awsdns-60.co.ukDNS only
ns-230.awsdns-28.comDNS only
ns-808.awsdns-37.netDNS only
MX Records:
1: aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
SOA:Serial: 1, TTL: 86400s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:70ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 ip4:162.243.224.94 ip4:104.237.132.195 ip4:67.205.134.225 include:_spf.google.com include:spf.braintreegateway.com include:relay.mailchannels.net include:mail.zendesk.com include:mailgun.org ~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 legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and unsupported, posing security and compatibility risks. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure based on DNS nameservers. The HTML content is minimal and primarily a security challenge page with JavaScript-based redirect and browser integrity checks. No modern analytics, advertising, or tracking scripts are detected. The site lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance is likely moderate due to AWS hosting but cannot be fully assessed due to content blocking. The technical debt is high due to outdated CMS and missing modern security practices.
Analyze Another Website