Skip to main content

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

S

Is spholz.com Safe? Security Analysis for spholz.com

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

OtherN/asmall
JavaScript
Analyzed 7/30/2025Completed 8:59:09 PM
54
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

The website at spholz.com/lander is currently a minimal landing or parking page with very limited content and no visible business information. The domain is newly registered in March 2024 via GoDaddy.com, LLC, indicating a recently established presence. The site uses a basic landing page system (PW Lander System) and includes Google Adsense scripts, but lacks any privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, as well as contact details or business descriptions. Technically, the site employs JavaScript and external static resources but does not enable DNSSEC or security headers, reflecting a basic security posture. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement from the provided data, which is a critical security consideration. Overall, the site appears to be a placeholder or under development rather than a fully operational business website.

Detected Technologies

JavaScript

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

Due to the lack of business content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The domain age and registrar information suggest a new entity without established trust indicators or certifications. No contact information or social media presence is visible, limiting insights into partnerships or growth strategies. The site’s use of Google Adsense indicates a possible intent to monetize traffic, but no direct business services or products are described.

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The security posture is minimal with no DNSSEC enabled and no detected security headers. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with common data protection regulations such as GDPR. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The domain status includes standard prohibitions against deletion, transfer, and renewal changes, which is positive. Overall, the site lacks fundamental security best practices and transparency, which could pose risks if the site evolves to handle user data.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.

✨Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Content Quality:

poor

Branding:

inconsistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
JavaScript
Frameworks:
PW (Lander System)
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

basic

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

poor

Security Assessment

Security Score:
30/100

Analytics & Tracking

Tracking Level:minimal
Privacy Compliance:poor

Advertising & Marketing

Ad Networks:
Google Adsense
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 minimal and appears to be a placeholder or parking page.

πŸ›‘οΈSecurity Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

25/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

Missing X-Frame-Options header

HIGH

Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

πŸ‘€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
phone

πŸ›‘οΈ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

πŸ“§Email Security

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

Email Security

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC validation

60/100
Score

DMARC not enforcing

MEDIUM

DMARC policy is set to "none"

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

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 include:spf.em.secureserver.net include:secureserver.net -all
DNS Lookups:2/10
Policy:-all
DMARC Details
Policy:none
Aggregate Reports:report@dmarc.cloud.em.secureserver.net

πŸ†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

πŸ“ŠDNS 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:3.33.130.190, 15.197.148.33
Name Servers:
ns23.domaincontrol.comDNS only
ns24.domaincontrol.comDNS only
MX Records:
0: spholz-com.mail.protection.outlook.com
SOA:Serial: 2025070302, TTL: 600s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:311ms

SPF Analysis

SPF Record:
v=spf1 include:spf.em.secureserver.net include:secureserver.net -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

πŸ”§Technical Analysis

Detailed technical findings and analysis from AI assessment.

Technical Analysis

Comprehensive security assessment findings

Additional Findings

The website uses a minimal JavaScript-based landing page system (PW Lander System) with external scripts from Google Adsense and wsimg.com. Hosting appears to be via GoDaddy, consistent with the domain registrar. The site lacks meta tags, SEO optimization, and accessibility features. Performance is likely moderate given the minimal content, but mobile optimization and navigation clarity are basic at best. There is no CMS detected, and the site appears static. Technical debt is low due to minimal implementation, but modernization opportunities include adding SEO, accessibility, and security enhancements.
Analyze Another Website