Skip to main content

Is sugardaddy.de a Scam? Security Check Results - Maiatsaco LTD Reviews

sugardaddy.de favicon

Is sugardaddy.de Safe? Security Analysis for Maiatsaco LTD

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

OtherCyprusmedium
WordPressElementorYoast SEOGoogle Tag ManagerGoogle reCAPTCHA+1 more
Analyzed 8/1/2025Completed 10:46:03 PM
53
Security Score
MEDIUM RISK

AI Summary

SugarDaddy.de is a specialized online dating platform focusing on sugar daddy and sugar baby relationships primarily in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Operated by Maiatsaco LTD, a Cyprus-registered company, the platform offers various types of dating experiences such as dinner dates, travel companions, exclusive and party dates. The business model is pay-per-feature without mandatory subscriptions, emphasizing flexibility and user satisfaction. The website is professionally designed with strong branding and clear navigation, targeting adults interested in sugar dating relationships. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Elementor and integrates modern analytics and security tools like Google Tag Manager and reCAPTCHA. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and member verification processes, though explicit security policies are not published. Overall, the platform maintains a high level of professionalism and trustworthiness in the niche sugar dating market.

Detected Technologies

WordPressElementorYoast SEOGoogle Tag ManagerGoogle reCAPTCHAMouseflow

🧠AI Business Intelligence

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

Business Intelligence

Market & Strategic Analysis

SugarDaddy.de holds a leading position in the German sugar dating market, leveraging a clear value proposition of discretion, safety, and real relationship building. The company benefits from a large active user base and offers a variety of dating services tailored to different preferences. The pay-per-feature model reduces barriers to entry and increases user flexibility. The Cyprus registration is typical for online businesses targeting European markets. The platform's editorial control and verification processes provide competitive advantages by reducing fake profiles and increasing user trust. The partnership with members.sugardaddy.date for membership management indicates a modular service ecosystem. Growth potential exists in expanding regional presence and enhancing security and privacy transparency.

Extracted Contact Information

Marketing Intelligence Data

Company Registration

Legal Name:

Maiatsaco LTD

Registration Number:

HE338387

Security Posture Analysis

Comprehensive Security Assessment

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, integration of Google reCAPTCHA to prevent automated abuse, and editorial controls to ensure profile authenticity. Member verification through ID and video adds a layer of trust and safety. However, the absence of explicit security policies, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Security headers are not explicitly configured, which could be enhanced to mitigate common web threats. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. Overall, the platform balances usability and security well but should formalize its security governance and communication.

Strategic Recommendations

Priority Actions for Security Improvement

1

Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and user trust.

Observations

AI-powered comprehensive website and business analysis.

AI-Enhanced Website Analysis

Business Insights

Company:

Maiatsaco LTD

Description:

SugarDaddy is Germany's No. 1 sugar daddy dating agency offering a platform for sugar daddies and sugar babies to connect for various types of dates and relationships.

Key Services:
Sugar Daddy and Sugar Baby matchmakingDinner DatesTravel CompanionExclusive DatesParty Dates
Content Quality:

excellent

Branding:

consistent

Technical Stack

Technologies:
WordPressElementorYoast SEOGoogle Tag ManagerGoogle reCAPTCHAMouseflow
Frameworks:
Elementor
Platforms:
WordPress
Performance:

moderate

Mobile:

good

Accessibility:

basic

SEO:

good

Security Assessment

Security Score:
85/100
Best Practices:
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA integration
  • ID and video verification for members
  • Editorial control to prevent fake profiles

Analytics & Tracking

Services:
MouseflowGoogle Tag Manager
Tracking Level:moderate
Privacy Compliance:good

Advertising & Marketing

Tracking Pixels:
Mouseflow
Transparency Level:basic

Website Quality Assessment

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

Key Observations

1

Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges

🛡️Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis and recommendations.

Security Headers

HTTP security headers analysis

50/100
Score

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

HIGH

Forces HTTPS connections

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

33/100
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

EU business without adequate privacy measures

CRITICAL

EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

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

47/100
Score

No vulnerability disclosure policy

MEDIUM

NIS2 encourages coordinated vulnerability disclosure

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

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 68 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:46.101.200.44
Name Servers:
paul.ns.cloudflare.com
rosa.ns.cloudflare.com
MX Records:
5: alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
5: alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
1: aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
10: alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
SOA:Serial: 2376094211, TTL: 1800s

DNSSEC Status

DNSSEC Not Enabled

DNS Performance

Resolution Time:49ms

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 a modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder, ensuring flexible and responsive design. SEO is enhanced via Yoast SEO plugin, and analytics are implemented through Google Tag Manager and Mouseflow for user behavior tracking. The site uses Cloudflare for DNS and likely CDN services, improving performance and security. The loading performance is moderate, with some minified CSS and JS caching in place. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. The site is mobile optimized and uses structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced search engine understanding. Technical risks are minimal, but the absence of explicit security headers and formal security documentation represents a technical debt area.
Analyze Another Website