ScamLens analyzed mez.ink using 90+ threat intelligence sources and assigned a trust score of 85/100, classifying it as safe.
Trust Score: 85/100
Risk Level: Trusted
This domain already shows strong risk signals. Stop interacting, preserve the page, chat, phone, and payment evidence, and move into response or reporting immediately.
Quick Answer
This domain already shows strong risk signals. Stop interacting, preserve the page, chat, phone, and payment evidence, and move into response or reporting immediately.
Positive Signals
- +Google Safe Browsing: Safe
- +HTTPS encryption supported
Concerns
- -3 security sources flagged as suspicious
Score Breakdown
Was this assessment accurate?
mez.ink looks legitimate
No threat feeds have flagged this domain. Use standard online-safety habits.
- Bookmark the official URLScammers often clone legitimate brands at look-alike domains. A saved bookmark protects you from typos.
- Watch for unexpected payment requestsEven legitimate sites can be hijacked. Treat unsolicited 'urgent payment' prompts as suspicious.
- Verify HTTPS + the exact spellingConfirm the lock icon, and inspect the domain letter-by-letter before entering passwords or card details.
Trust but verify — open this domain on unrelated security services and compare the verdict.
Sign in to run the AI risk analysis
The threat-intelligence signals below are available to everyone. The plain-language AI risk summary is generated on demand for signed-in users — sign in (free) to run it for this domain.
Threat-intelligence sources
Checked across 28 sources — 3 flagged this domain
Show source breakdown
Threat-intelligence sources
Checked across 28 sources — 3 flagged this domain
- safe_browsingclean
- urlhausclean
- cloudflare_radarclean
- cert_transparencyclean
- alienvault_otxinfo
- phishstatsclean
- virustotalclean
- ipqsclean
- abuseipdbclean
- securitytrailsclean
- phishdestroyclean
- threatfoxclean
- shodan_internetdbclean
- phishtankclean
- urlscanclean
- rdapclean
- maltiverseclean
- dns_securityclean
- wanted_domainsclean
- darkwebclean
- phishing_databaseflagged
- phishing_armyflagged
- openphishflagged
- scam_blocklistclean
- maltrailclean
- crypto_scam_feedclean
- hagezi_tifclean
- red_flag_domainsclean
ScamLens aggregates real-time signals from 90+ commercial and open-source threat-intelligence providers including Google Safe Browsing, VirusTotal, PhishTank, URLhaus, ThreatFox, Cloudflare Radar, OTX, IPQS, GoPlus, Honeypot.is, and more. A flagged signal is evidence; the absence of flags is not proof of safety. Use the signals below alongside community reports to decide.
Advanced Scan
Comprehensive data lookup across premium sources
- Website history verification
- Detailed WHOIS information
- Reverse WHOIS association
- Traffic rank analysis
- Company registration check
AI Deep Investigation
Cross-check the story, claims, and supporting evidence before you decide
- Everything in Advanced Scan
- AI website content analysis
- AI cross-reference verification
- Claim authenticity validation
- Detailed report with evidence
Comprehensive Investigation
Full-spectrum investigation with company deep search & social intelligence
- Everything in Deep Investigation
- AI company background search
- Social media intelligence
- Detailed suspicious point analysis
- Event timeline & entity connections
This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a legal determination.
Security Sources
Domain Information
- DNSSEC
- Disabled
SSL/TLS Certificate
No data available
Server Information
- IP Address
- 104.18.4.46
- Hosting Provider
- Cloudflare, Inc.
- ASN
- AS13335 Cloudflare, Inc.
- Server Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Organization
- Cloudflare, Inc.
Related Intelligence
Technical Details (DNS / Headers / Subdomains)
DNS Records
Email Security
SPF ConfiguredDMARC Configured| Type | Value |
|---|---|
| A | 104.18.4.46 |
| A | 104.18.5.46 |
| AAAA | 2606:4700::6812:52e |
| AAAA | 2606:4700::6812:42e |
| MX | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| MX | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| MX | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| MX | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| MX | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| NS | tosana.ns.cloudflare.com |
| NS | wanda.ns.cloudflare.com |
| TXT | facebook-domain-verification=eum1euve73s6rfdcpnraebwy4lgd2i |
| TXT | google-site-verification=fvitpCngh2OZ5n9vpwYeSZv74VzkWI0_cKgn6FC3m0w |
| TXT | google-site-verification=fynwPow95-NavzFMfLCWflP2ySwqIq2KaZYSUZisD5c |
| TXT | google-site-verification=s412m1tXPtq7WZ0b-HavXyNkTlf4UHe8jTToyT2aRCU |
| TXT | v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all |
HTTP Security Headers
0/6Channels / Subdomains
No data available
Community Reports
Log in to report and share your experience
High-Risk Signals
The risk signals are strong enough. Move on evidence preservation, reporting, and victim response now
This result is no longer just a normal verification case. Moving the chat, phone, payment, and official-reporting path in parallel is usually more important than waiting for more data.
Recommended First
Move into the victim action plan
If you already paid, logged in, or installed tools, use the action plan first to prioritize containment and evidence work.
Move into the website-reporting flow
Move the site, payment evidence, chat trail, and contact points into the formal reporting path.
Add the chat, DM, and payment-pressure trail
Keep the Telegram, WhatsApp, social DM, and payment-pressure trail in the same timeline.
Check the callback number and SMS
If the actor also used calls, SMS, or one-time codes, verify that phone path next.
The results are based on multiple third-party data sources and AI models. False positives or negatives may occur. This report should not be used as the sole basis for any decision. Please verify with additional sources.
If a loss already happened, move into the response flow now
Delay is the main risk with high-risk domains. Prioritize freezes, credential resets, reporting, and evidence preservation now.
If no loss happened yet, continue with the website-reporting and official-agency paths next.
Related Security Guides
Learn more about how to protect yourself from this type of threat.
Understanding this threat
FAQ
Is mez.ink safe to visit?
mez.ink received a trust score of 85/100 from ScamLens, based on analysis of 30+ threat intelligence sources. No significant threats were detected. The site appears safe and trustworthy.
Was mez.ink flagged by any threat databases?
mez.ink was flagged by 3 out of 30+ threat intelligence sources. Specifically flagged by: phishing_database, phishing_army, openphish. The detected threat categories include: general threat.
How old is mez.ink?
Registration date information for mez.ink is not publicly available through WHOIS records, which can itself be a risk indicator.
Does mez.ink use HTTPS and have a valid SSL certificate?
ScamLens could not verify the SSL certificate details for mez.ink during this scan. Treat this as unavailable evidence, not as proof that the site is safe or unsafe.
What security headers does mez.ink implement?
mez.ink is missing important security headers: Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Strict-Transport-Security, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy. Missing security headers can leave visitors vulnerable to cross-site scripting (XSS) and other web-based attacks.
What does the ScamLens community think about mez.ink?
No community votes or reports have been submitted for mez.ink yet. You can be the first to share your experience.
Where is mez.ink hosted?
mez.ink is hosted by Cloudflare, Inc. in Toronto, Canada (ASN: ASAS13335 Cloudflare, Inc.).
What should I do about mez.ink?
Based on our analysis, mez.ink appears safe. You can proceed with normal caution. Always verify URLs manually and avoid clicking suspicious links.
Is this report useful?
Use this report to tell others to stop interacting now and move straight into containment, evidence preservation, and reporting.
Forward to your parents — they deserve to browse safely too.
About this analysis
This report is generated from real-time data across 90+ threat intelligence sources, combined with AI analysis and community feedback.
Learn about our scoring methodology | Last analyzed: June 28, 2026