Is uniswap-views.pages.dev a scam? TrustSniffer's high-risk assessment: 0/100

Security Alert

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

The address in question is a very recently created hostname on a free, shared web-publishing subdomain, and its name incorporates the brand term of a well-known decentralized exchange. Automated visits did not reach a normal site. They received a 403 interstitial headed "Suspected Phishing", and only a few hundred characters of text were captured. The site presents no verifiable product, company or business model, and its apparent purpose cannot be established from the captured content.

Scam/Impersonation Risk

Active contradictions are present, and they are decisive. A major browser-safety service currently flags the address under its social-engineering category, which covers phishing and deceptive-site behavior. Ten security engines also rate it malicious and one more rates it suspicious. The engines include several top-tier vendors. Together these produce a confirmed blacklist condition, and the browser-safety listing alone is enough to trigger a protective block. The hostname pairs a recognizable exchange brand term with a disposable, free-hosting parent domain. That is the typical construction of a lookalike lure aimed at crypto-wallet users. No conflicting legal identities were found, because no identity pages were captured. The case for risk therefore rests on external detections and the structure of the hostname. In the sandbox, no wallet-connection prompts, clipboard tampering, hidden forms, or credential posts to external destinations were observed. That result is limited, because the main page was blocked at capture and the real content may never have been exercised. It does not offset the detections. Brand-lookalike pages of this kind commonly show wallet-connection or signing prompts to targeted visitors while appearing blocked or empty to automated scanners. Evidence:

• Homepage: the captured response was a 403 interstitial titled "Suspected Phishing", with 381 characters of text and no usable site content.
• Domain provenance: registered 2026, about 48 days old (~0.13 years); web archive holds 1 snapshot dated 2026-09-06, spanning a single year, so there is no meaningful history.
• Reputation: a browser-safety service flags the domain as social engineering, 10 engines rate it malicious and 1 suspicious, and an external blacklist condition is active.
• Behavior: 88 external XHR requests were made, with about 97% of activity going to external hosts. Sandbox runs logged 12 console errors and a large DOM mutation burst after interaction (1,508 changes).

Regulatory Verification Notes

No legal, identity, terms, privacy or licensing pages could be captured, so no entity name, jurisdiction, registration number or regulator reference is available. No third-party regulatory source or broker-database entry matches the site. Any financial or trading functionality associated with the exchange brand in the hostname therefore has no regulatory standing that can be tied to this address. Ownership and governance are opaque, and domain registration details are incomplete. This is secondary to the external detections and is not the basis of the verdict. The transport-layer facts are clean but carry no weight as proof of legitimacy. Free domain-validated certificates are routinely issued to phishing pages and give no assurance about the operator. Evidence:

• Hosting: served from AS13335 (Cloudflare, Inc., US), registry ARIN.
• Transport encryption: TLS certificate issued by WE1, domain-validated (DV) only, valid to 2026-11-28 with 33 days remaining.
• Protocol directory: the domain is not recognized in any decentralized-finance protocol directory, so no TVL or protocol listing supports a link to the brand.
• Legal pages: none captured, so no operator, license or registration disclosure exists to assess.

What to Verify Next

The authenticity of the exchange's own channels should be confirmed only from sources already known to be genuine. These include the official application, a bookmarked address, and the project's verified social accounts. The hostname should not be treated as an official property unless the brand owner confirms it through an independent route. Any inbound message, advertisement or social post that directed a user to this address should be treated as a likely lure. It should be reported to the platform where it appeared. If wallet-connection or token-approval prompts were already accepted on this site, the wallet's approvals list should be reviewed and any unfamiliar allowances revoked. Security teams should check whether the hostname appears in email, chat, or proxy logs, and should block it at the network and mail layers. Evidence:

• Homepage: the interstitial warning and the absence of any captured content mean nothing on the page can be taken as proof of origin.
• Hostname: it embeds a recognized exchange brand term on a free, shared parent domain, so legitimacy would need confirmation from the brand owner.
• Reputation: the active blacklist condition means the address should be treated as hostile until delisting is shown.

Summary Verdict

The overall posture is critical. Confirmed external threat detections, a lookalike-style hostname, and a domain only weeks old with no history converge on a deceptive, high-risk site. The site has no verifiable operator identity to counterbalance them. The sandbox shows no active exploit behavior, but that observation is incomplete and does not change the conclusion.

Infrastructure Integrity

The site sits behind Cloudflare's CDN and WAF, and all four observed IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6) are edge servers, so the origin host cannot be independently identified. The infrastructure itself is mainstream and shows no technical anomaly. Shared edge hosting of this kind is also available to phishing operators, and it makes the hosting hard to verify and content swaps easy to hide. The infrastructure is a mitigating factor only. It cannot offset the reputational findings, and it says nothing about who operates the site.

Closing Assessment

Credentials, seed phrases, wallet connections, signing requests and payments should not be submitted to this address. The site should be neither visited nor interacted with beyond passive inspection in an isolated environment, and no file or prompt it serves should be accepted. Organizations should add it to blocklists and report it to the relevant brand-protection channels.