---
title: "Is burnt-xion.pages.dev a Scam? Trust Score 5/100"
source: TrustSniffer
type: Website trust & fraud report
subject: "burnt-xion.pages.dev"
verdict: "Critical Risk"
title: "Is Pages a scam? burnt-xion.pages.dev trust score 5/100"
trust_score: 5
classification_confidence: 75
canonical_url: https://trustsniffer.com/report/burnt-xion.pages.dev
assessed: 2026-10-29
---

# Is Pages a scam? TrustSniffer's high-risk assessment of burnt-xion.pages.dev: 5/100

## Verdict


**Verdict: Critical Risk, trust score 5/100.** burnt-xion.pages.dev shows high-risk / scam indicators.

This assessment found strong scam indicators. Do not pay, sign in, or share personal details with this site.

Labels: Sensitive Interaction Risk, Governance Risk

Assessed 2026-10-29 by automated analysis. Classification confidence 75%.

## Evidence status and limitations


Evidence completeness: Not recorded

- The real-world operator identity was not independently verified.
- Module-level completeness metadata is unavailable for this legacy report.

## At a glance

The checks that decide most of this verdict.

| Check | Result | Status |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Malware engines | 12 flagged it (VirusTotal) | Risk |
| Google Safe Browsing | Not listed (Google) | Clear |
| Abuse reports on the host | 0% confidence (AbuseIPDB, 0 reports; shared hosting inflates reports) | Clear |
| Domain age | 2.4 years old (Registered history) | Clear |
| Web archive | Archived since 2024 (17 snapshots) | Clear |
| Certificate | Encrypted connection (Issued by WE1) | Noted |

## The page as captured


![Screenshot of the burnt-xion.pages.dev homepage captured during the TrustSniffer assessment](https://trustsniffer.com/outputs/burnt-xion.pages.dev/screenshots/first.png)

_What burnt-xion.pages.dev served when TrustSniffer captured it on 2026-10-29. The page may look different now._

## Key findings


- Automated classification: Sensitive Interaction Risk.
- Domain age: 1 to 3 years (registration continuity).
- Public web-archive history exists since 2024.
- At least one reputation service TrustSniffer consulted had flagged this domain at assessment time.

## Full analysis


### Security Alert

Fortinet, Sophos flagged this site in external intelligence checks, indicating elevated compromise/scam exposure that requires immediate caution.

The address burnt-xion.pages.dev is a subdomain on a free, shared static-hosting platform. When the site was analysed, it did not present a normal landing page. It served a short, bot-challenge interstitial titled as a suspected-phishing notice, which blocked automated access. The site's real content, products and business model could not be observed, so its apparent purpose is undetermined. A throwaway project hosted under a shared platform domain is the kind of address often used for disposable web fronts.


### Scam/Impersonation Risk

Contradictory signals are present and decisive. Several independent reputation sources currently flag the site as malicious, including detections from more than one top-tier security vendor. This amounts to a confirmed **blacklist** hit, and a phishing-related association is also recorded against the address. The interstitial a visitor receives is a suspected-phishing warning, not site content. No conflicting legal identities and no specific brand impersonation were observed, but there is also no site content that could offset the detections. Browser-behaviour testing found no wallet-connection prompts, clipboard tampering, hidden forms or credential forms posting off-site. That absence is only partly reassuring, because the real page content was gated and may not have been exercised. The testing did show a very large share of page activity going to external destinations and a high rate of script errors. That pattern fits an unstable or hastily assembled page, and it adds to the concern but does not prove malicious intent.


Evidence:
- Homepage: the captured response was a blocked-access challenge page titled as a suspected phishing notice, not the site's own content.
- Reputation checks: 12 engines rated the domain malicious and 1 suspicious. The hits were corroborated by an external blacklist source, and two top-tier security vendors were among the flagging engines.
- Behaviour testing (3 successful runs): 24 external XHR calls and 4 external POST requests, with up to roughly 95% of page activity directed externally. 18 console errors were logged. No wallet, clipboard or credential-capture behaviour was detected.
- Domain provenance: the domain first appeared in the web archive in June 2024, about 2.4 years ago. The archive holds 17 snapshots spanning 2024–2026 (3 years tracked).

### Regulatory Verification Notes

The site gives no legal, licensing, corporate or contact disclosures that could be assessed. No company name, registration number or regulator reference was visible, because the only content reachable was the interstitial. Operator identity cannot be established from the available evidence, and the address sits on a shared hosting platform, which gives no independent link to a named organisation. No third-party broker or regulatory-database record matched the site, so there is no licensing context to weigh. In a different case this would be a verification gap rather than evidence of wrongdoing. Here it adds nothing to offset the confirmed reputation findings.


Evidence:
- Homepage: no operator name, licence, registration or jurisdiction was observable on the content that was captured.
- Hosting: the site is served from AS13335 (Cloudflare, Inc., US).
- Transport encryption: the TLS certificate was issued by WE1 (DV, domain validation only) and is valid to 2026-12-10. A DV certificate confirms control of the domain only and says nothing about the operator's identity.
- Broker and regulatory datasets: no match was found.

### What to Verify Next

Any organisation or individual that directed traffic to this address should be asked, through an independent route, whether the address is genuinely theirs. Examples are an official website reached by typing it directly, or a known phone number. Links received by message, email or social media should be treated as untrusted until that confirmation is obtained. If the site claims a financial or regulated activity, the claimed entity and licence should be checked directly in the relevant regulator's public register, not through any reference on the site. If the address is a legitimate project, its owner should check the deployment for compromise or unauthorised changes. They should also seek removal of the listings through the flagging vendors after remediation. Re-testing is worthwhile once the listings clear and real content is reachable.


Evidence:
- Reputation findings: the current malicious detections and the suspected-phishing interstitial are the reason the independent confirmation is needed.
- Homepage: no verifiable licence or entity reference was available to check against a registry.
- Reachability: access is currently gated, so the site's actual offering could not be assessed.

### Summary Verdict

The site carries an elevated, cautionary risk posture, driven decisively by active third-party malicious detections and a phishing-related warning. Nothing observable about its operator or purpose offsets these findings. It should be treated as unsafe for any sensitive interaction until the listings are cleared and an independently verifiable operator is established.


### Infrastructure Integrity

The site is served through a major CDN and web application firewall (Cloudflare), with a valid DV certificate from a recognised issuer. All observed addresses are edge servers, and the origin server is not visible. This is a mitigating factor only: it shows the site is run on mainstream infrastructure and offers protection against attacks on the site. It does not offset the reputation findings and does not establish who operates the site.


### Closing Assessment

Account login, credential entry, payments and file downloads should be avoided entirely. At most, the address should be treated as read-only, and only from a well-protected browser. Anyone who needs the underlying service should locate its official channel independently and should report the link if it arrived unsolicited.


_Written analysis generated 2026-10-29 by the TrustSniffer Analysis Engine from the evidence in this report._

## What the analysis found

4 findings contributed to this verdict, raised by governance, external reputation, behaviour in a sandbox, registration and ownership.

### 01 Governance
- A threat feed lists this domain as malicious, and that caps the score whatever the other checks found. (Governance `rule:GOV_CRITICAL_BLACKLIST`)

### 02 External reputation
- An external threat feed lists this domain: either Google Safe Browsing marked it malicious, or a significant number of malware engines flagged it. (External reputation `rule:EXT_BLACKLIST_CRITICAL`)

### 03 Behaviour in a sandbox
- Most of what the page loaded came from other domains rather than from this one. (Behaviour in a sandbox `rule:BEHAV_EXTERNAL_RATIO_HIGH`)
- The page produced an unusually high number of errors while it ran. (Behaviour in a sandbox `rule:BEHAV_CONSOLE_ERRORS_HIGH`)
- The page made many background requests to other domains while it was open. (Behaviour in a sandbox `rule:BEHAV_EXTERNAL_XHR_HEAVY`)

### 04 Registration and ownership
- The public registration record for this domain is incomplete. (Registration and ownership `rule:KF_WHOIS_INCOMPLETE`)

## Identity verification


| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Status | UNKNOWN |
| Identity score | 50/100 |
| Identity verification confidence | 30% |

- AI page analysis unavailable (page captured; identity not AI-verified)

_Identity verification measures whether the site can be independently connected to a real-world brand or person. It is separate from the classification confidence._

## What TrustSniffer observed

First-party facts recorded during the assessment of burnt-xion.pages.dev.

- The request stayed on burnt-xion.pages.dev. It was not redirected to another domain. (Clear)
- The earliest public archive of this site is from 2024-06-11. (Clear)
- It is hosted on CLOUDFLARENET, from a server in US. (Noted)

## Domain intelligence


| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Registrar | Not available |
| Hosting | CLOUDFLARENET - Cloudflare, Inc., US |
| Country | US |
| Server IP | 2606:4700:310c::ac42:2c99 |
| Name servers | Not available |
| CDN / edge network | Detected (cloudflare) |
| Resolved IP addresses | 4 |
| Edge IP addresses | 4 |
| Likely origin IP addresses | 0 |
| SSL issuer | WE1 |
| SSL expiry | 2026-12-10 |
| Domain age | 2.38 years (continuous registration) |
| Domain expiry | Not available |
| Archive first seen | 2024-06-11 |
| Archive snapshots | 17 |
| Reputation | VirusTotal: 12 flagged \| AbuseIPDB: 0% confidence, 0 reports \| Google Safe Browsing: 0 matches |

## About this assessment


**Was this report useful?** Tell other people what you think of TrustSniffer, good or bad. An honest review helps others decide whether to rely on these checks. [Review TrustSniffer on Trustpilot](https://www.trustpilot.com/review/trustsniffer.com)

A trust score summarises the evidence TrustSniffer could collect about burnt-xion.pages.dev at assessment time. It is a starting point for your own judgement, not a guarantee: a high score means the signals were consistent with a legitimately operated site, a low or critical score means several risk patterns were present.

TrustSniffer assesses a website from the evidence it can collect at a point in time: domain registration and age, hosting and certificate, the content the site served, and third-party reputation feeds. A score is a summary of that evidence, not a guarantee and not a legal finding. There is no human rating and no user review in it. A site can change after it is assessed.

## Related on TrustSniffer
- [blockguildmiddleware.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/blockguildmiddleware.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 5/100)
- [veno.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/veno.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 0/100)
- [dfhdfhdfhdh.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/dfhdfhdfhdh.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 0/100)
- [vote-terminal.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/vote-terminal.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 17/100)
- [opseccloud-migrate.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/opseccloud-migrate.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 5/100)
- [nibiru-fi-6c6.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/nibiru-fi-6c6.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 5/100)
- [isthatblep-airdrop.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/isthatblep-airdrop.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 8/100)
- [mugicateth-vip.pages.dev](https://trustsniffer.com/report/mugicateth-vip.pages.dev), a similar name (Critical Risk, 5/100)
- [grokvoxus.com](https://trustsniffer.com/report/grokvoxus.com), another site assessed as critical-risk (Critical Risk, 0/100)
- [fournisseur4user.com](https://trustsniffer.com/report/fournisseur4user.com), another site assessed as critical-risk (Critical Risk, 0/100)
- [Every website and wallet TrustSniffer has assessed](https://trustsniffer.com/directory), the full risk directory
- [Other domains assessed as high-risk or phishing](https://trustsniffer.com/directory/phishing-domains), same verdict band
- [Check another website](https://trustsniffer.com/web-intelligence), run a new assessment
- [Check a crypto wallet address](https://trustsniffer.com/on-chain-risk), on-chain screening
- [The TrustSniffer Risk Index](https://trustsniffer.com/stats), how this verdict compares

## Guides
- [How to revoke token approval after a scam site](https://trustsniffer.com/blog/how-to-revoke-token-approval-after-a-scam-site)
- [Stablecoin Freezes, Oct 26, 2026: 11 Wallets](https://trustsniffer.com/blog/stablecoin-freeze-report-2026-10-26)
- [99.5% of flagged USDT wallets were frozen](https://trustsniffer.com/blog/99-5-of-flagged-usdt-wallets-were-frozen)

---
*Source: [TrustSniffer](https://trustsniffer.com/report/burnt-xion.pages.dev) — independent automated trust & fraud analysis. Cite as https://trustsniffer.com/report/burnt-xion.pages.dev · assessed 2026-10-29.*