Snell13 analysis layers
All campaigns

Same brand or same name

Confirmed

3 entities · first seen 3h ago · last less than an hour ago

At least one member was judged dangerous by its own analysis. The group carries that status, which does not condemn every one of its members.

Why these entities hold together

The names collapse onto one another once reduced to their skeleton — deceptive characters neutralised — or target the same brand through the same impersonation mechanism.

  • Même squelette de confusabilité « static ».
Cohesion67%

Share of member pairs actually linked. At 100% every member is linked to every other — a block. A low value describes a chain: the ends may have no direct relation.

Where this group comes from

Grouped by

Grouping is computed here, on our own database. No external source hands over a ready-made campaign.

  • Moteur de corrélationin-house2 edges

Members seen by

How these items entered the database: a public list, an analysis run here, the sandbox, a user report. An entry point, not authorship.

  • URLhaus (abuse.ch)reports threats3/3
  • Bac à sableproduces facts, does not judge3/3
  • RDAPproduces facts, does not judge2/3
  • Juge maisonproduces facts, does not judge1/3

Group composition

domain3

What links the members

Edges per pivot family. One pair of members can be linked several times: these shares count evidence, not entities.

Same brand or same name2

Most recent days

Observations per day, most recent first.

  • 16 Aug 20261

Members · 3

Each member keeps its own verdict: belonging to the group makes it worth examining, not guilty. The joining reason is shown only when it differs from the patterns above.