--- title: "Is styledebates.com a Scam? Trust Score 0/100" source: TrustSniffer type: Website trust & fraud report subject: "styledebates.com" verdict: "Critical Risk" title: "Is styledebates.com a Scam? Trust Score 0/100" trust_score: 0 classification_confidence: 55 canonical_url: https://trustsniffer.com/report/styledebates.com assessed: 2026-08-20 --- # Is styledebates.com a scam? TrustSniffer's high-risk assessment: 0/100 ## Verdict **Verdict: Critical Risk, trust score 0/100.** styledebates.com 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 2026-08-20 by automated analysis. Classification confidence 55%. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | What this site appears to be | Studio Graphica is a boutique branding and creative agency site presenting services, portfolio pieces, and contact details (email and phone). The page functions as a lead-generation/portfolio landing page with no evident financial or credential-harvesting activity. | ## Evidence status and limitations Evidence completeness: UNKNOWN - 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 | 7 flagged it (VirusTotal) | Risk | | Google Safe Browsing | Not listed (Google) | Clear | | Abuse reports on the host | 0 reports (AbuseIPDB; shared hosting inflates this count) | Noted | | Domain age | 9.9 years old (Registered history) | Clear | | Web archive | Archived since 2017 (Public history exists) | Clear | | Certificate | Encrypted connection (Issued by Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2) | Noted | ## The page as captured ![Screenshot of the styledebates.com homepage captured during the TrustSniffer assessment](https://trustsniffer.com/outputs/styledebates.com/screenshots/first.png) _What styledebates.com served when TrustSniffer captured it on 2026-08-20. The page may look different now._ ## Key findings - Automated classification: Sensitive Interaction Risk. - Domain age: 3 to 10 years (registration continuity). - Public web-archive history exists since 2017. - At least one reputation service TrustSniffer consulted had flagged this domain at assessment time. ## Full analysis ### Security Alert Fortinet flagged this site in external intelligence checks, indicating elevated compromise/scam exposure that requires immediate caution. The website at styledebates.com presents itself as “Studio Graphica,” a boutique creative and branding agency offering brand identity, animation, strategy, portfolio work, and client contact options. Its apparent business model is lead generation for branding and creative-service engagements rather than financial activity or credential collection. ### Scam/Impersonation Risk No phishing form, login interface, credential-collection mechanism, or overt financial-scheme content was observed on the homepage. However, this benign presentation is outweighed by confirmed external blacklist status and multiple malicious reputation detections, including a Tier-1 security-provider detection. These are direct contradictions to the site’s apparently professional presentation and support a **critical risk posture for sensitive interactions**. The website’s domain and displayed agency name also warrant provenance scrutiny, although the available evidence does not establish a conflicting legal identity or confirmed brand impersonation. Evidence: - Homepage: presents Studio Graphica as a branding and animation agency and contains no login form or sensitive submission form. - External reputation telemetry: the domain is marked as blacklisted, with malicious detections recorded by multiple evaluated sources. - Domain registration record: registered 2016-09-26; age 9.9 years. ### Regulatory Verification Notes The homepage describes commercial creative services but does not provide a clearly identified legal entity, licensing information, or registration number in the supplied content. This is a regulatory and transparency verification gap rather than, by itself, proof of fraud. The operator identity remains independently unverified. The site’s valid transport certificate and identifiable hosting arrangement are technical positives, but they do not resolve the external reputation contradiction or establish regulatory standing. Evidence: - Homepage: identifies the public-facing brand as Studio Graphica and describes branding, animation, and strategy services without a license or registration number. - Hosting infrastructure: served from AS26496, AS-26496-GO-DADDY-COM-LLC — GoDaddy.com, LLC, US. - Transport encryption: TLS certificate issued by Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2, DV validation, valid to 2026-11-05T10:44:13+00:00. ### What to Verify Next Before any sensitive interaction, an independent check should confirm the legal entity behind Studio Graphica, its business registration where applicable, and the authority of the person soliciting an engagement. Any proposed payment, transfer of confidential business material, or document exchange should use independently verified contact channels and payment protections, with the engagement paused if the counterparty cannot substantiate its identity. Evidence: - About or legal pages: obtain the full contracting entity name and registration details before executing an agreement. - Contact page: confirm that the person responding to an inquiry is authorised to represent the identified contracting entity. - Commercial documentation: reconcile the contracting name, payment beneficiary, invoice details, and service agreement before funds or sensitive materials are exchanged. ### Summary Verdict The overall posture is **critical trust risk**, with sensitive interaction risk driven by confirmed external reputation contradictions. The site’s polished agency presentation is insufficient to establish legitimacy, and the real-world operator remains unverified. ### Infrastructure Integrity The website is protected by a CDN/WAF layer, which provides a mitigating security control but is not evidence of legitimacy. The analysis observed only an edge address and did not independently expose the origin server, so infrastructure protection should not be treated as assurance regarding site ownership or content integrity. Evidence: - Observed edge address: 68.178.231.255. - CDN/WAF posture: one CDN edge address was observed and no origin candidate was identified. ### Closing Assessment Sensitive actions should remain paused unless the counterparty’s identity and engagement arrangements are independently confirmed through trusted channels and protected commercial processes. _Written analysis generated 2026-08-20 by the TrustSniffer Analysis Engine from the evidence in this report._ ## What the analysis found 2 findings contributed to this verdict, raised by registration and ownership, analysis engine, external reputation. ### 01 Governance Risk - Registration details are held behind a privacy service, so no operator is named publicly. This is common and legal, and it also means there is nobody to check. (Registration and ownership `rule:KF_WHOIS_PRIVATE`) - The registration record withholds contact details for the operator. (Registration and ownership `rule:KF_WHOIS_HIDDEN`) ### 02 Sensitive Interaction Risk - The analysis matched a pattern TrustSniffer treats as a direct threat to a visitor. (Analysis engine `signal:direct_threat`) - 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`) ## Identity verification | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Status | UNVERIFIED | | Identity score | 30/100 | | Identity verification confidence | 25% | - No on-site identity signals detected _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 styledebates.com. - The request stayed on styledebates.com. It was not redirected to another domain. (Clear) - Registration is published under GoDaddy.com, LLC. (Clear) - DNS for this domain is served by domaincontrol.com, across 2 name servers. (Noted) - The registration is paid up to 2026-09-26. (Noted) - The earliest public archive of this site is from 2017-04-20. (Clear) - It is hosted on AS-26496-GO-DADDY-COM-LLC, from a server in US. (Noted) ## Domain intelligence | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Registrar | GoDaddy.com, LLC | | Hosting | AS-26496-GO-DADDY-COM-LLC - GoDaddy.com, LLC, US | | Country | US | | Server IP | 68.178.231.255 | | Name servers | NS05.DOMAINCONTROL.COM, NS06.DOMAINCONTROL.COM | | SSL issuer | Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2 | | SSL expiry | 2026-11-05 | | Domain age | 9.90 years (continuous registration) | | Domain expiry | 2026-09-26 | | Archive first seen | 2017-04-20 | | Archive snapshots | Not counted (archive lookup incomplete) | | Reputation | VirusTotal: 7 flagged \| AbuseIPDB: 0 reports \| Google Safe Browsing: 0 matches | ## About this assessment A trust score summarises the evidence TrustSniffer could collect about styledebates.com 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 - [376797.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/376797.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [38cp666.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/38cp666.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [salyers-law.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/salyers-law.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [bozkimya.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/bozkimya.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [polybutyleneflorida.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/polybutyleneflorida.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [nfsglobalsolution.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/nfsglobalsolution.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [bbgimn.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/bbgimn.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [baahiye.so risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/baahiye.so) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [behsazangroup.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/behsazangroup.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [cheesion.com risk report](https://trustsniffer.com/report/cheesion.com) (Critical Risk, 0/100) - [Every website and wallet TrustSniffer has assessed](https://trustsniffer.com/directory) - [Other domains assessed as high-risk or phishing](https://trustsniffer.com/directory/phishing-domains) - [Check another website](https://trustsniffer.com/web-intelligence) - [Check a crypto wallet address](https://trustsniffer.com/on-chain-risk) - [The TrustSniffer Risk Index](https://trustsniffer.com/stats) ## Guides - [Stablecoin Freezes, Sep 24, 2026: 26 Wallets](https://trustsniffer.com/blog/stablecoin-freeze-report-2026-09-24) - [Script Droppers: How This Download Scam Works](https://trustsniffer.com/blog/script-droppers-how-this-download-scam-works) - [Stablecoin Freezes Sept 23, 2026: 11 Wallets](https://trustsniffer.com/blog/stablecoin-freeze-report-2026-09-23) --- *Source: [TrustSniffer](https://trustsniffer.com/report/styledebates.com) — independent automated trust & fraud analysis. Cite as https://trustsniffer.com/report/styledebates.com · assessed 2026-08-20.*