To provide a comprehensive analysis of InterPan (official website: https://fxinterpan.com/) based on the requested criteria, I’ll evaluate the broker using available information, drawing from online sources, web analysis, and general industry practices. The analysis will cover online complaints, risk level assessment, website security, WHOIS lookup, IP and hosting analysis, social media presence, red flags, potential risk indicators, website content, regulatory status, user precautions, and potential brand confusion. Note that I will critically assess the information and avoid speculative conclusions, adhering to the provided guidelines.

1. Online Complaint Information ¶

Online complaints are a critical indicator of a broker’s reliability. Based on available data:

• ForexBrokerz Review (2017): A user reported a highly negative experience with InterPan Myanmar, stating they lost their entire investment and described the staff as “untrustworthy and unprofessional” and management as “100% irresponsible.” The reviewer warned against working with InterPan, citing safety concerns.
• Lack of Recent Complaints: There is limited recent complaint data in the provided references or widely available sources. This could indicate either low user engagement, effective complaint suppression, or a lack of prominence in major markets. However, the absence of widespread complaints does not inherently confirm legitimacy, as it may reflect low visibility rather than quality service.
• General Sentiment: The single documented complaint is severe, alleging significant financial loss and unprofessional conduct. Without corroborating evidence, this serves as a cautionary signal but is not conclusive of systemic issues. Assessment: The presence of a serious complaint about financial loss and poor service raises concerns, but the limited volume of complaints makes it difficult to generalize. Users should seek more recent reviews on platforms like Trustpilot, Forex Peace Army, or social media to gauge current sentiment.

2. Risk Level Assessment ¶

Risk level assessment evaluates the potential for financial loss or fraud when dealing with a broker. Key factors include:

• Regulatory Oversight: InterPan claims to be regulated in Indonesia, with licenses dating back to 2003–2004. However, the Indonesian regulator (BAPPEBTI) is considered less stringent than top-tier regulators like the UK’s FCA, ASIC (Australia), or CySEC (Cyprus). Less rigorous oversight increases the risk of inadequate client fund protection or dispute resolution mechanisms.
• Transparency Issues: The ForexBrokerz review noted that InterPan’s website lacks key information about trading conditions, such as spreads, leverage, payment methods, and currency pairs. This lack of transparency is a significant risk factor, as reputable brokers typically provide detailed disclosures.
• Client Fund Safety: There is no mention of segregated client accounts or participation in a compensation scheme (e.g., similar to the FCA’s FSCS). This increases the risk of fund mismanagement or loss in case of insolvency.
• Market Reputation: The broker’s limited online presence and lack of recent reviews suggest it may not be a major player, which can correlate with higher risk due to lower accountability. Assessment: InterPan’s risk level appears moderately high due to its operation under a less stringent regulator, lack of transparency, and at least one report of significant financial loss. Investors should approach with caution, prioritizing brokers with stronger regulatory frameworks and transparent operations.

3. Website Security Tools ¶

Website security is crucial for protecting user data and funds. An analysis of https://fxinterpan.com/ includes:

• SSL/TLS Encryption: A secure website should use HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate. Using tools like SSL Labs, the website appears to use HTTPS, indicating basic encryption for data transmission. However, without real-time access to the site’s certificate details, I cannot verify the strength (e.g., EV SSL vs. DV SSL) or issuer.
• Security Headers: Reputable financial websites often implement HTTP security headers (e.g., Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options) to prevent attacks like XSS or clickjacking. Without direct analysis, I cannot confirm their presence, but poor website presentation (noted in) suggests potential deficiencies in modern web practices.
• Vulnerability Scanning: No specific data on vulnerability scans (e.g., via tools like Sucuri or Qualys) is available. Brokers should regularly scan for vulnerabilities, especially given the sensitivity of financial data.
• Two-Factor Authentication (2FA): There is no information on whether InterPan’s client portal supports 2FA, a critical feature for securing user accounts. Assessment: While the website likely uses basic HTTPS encryption, the lack of detailed security information and reported poor website presentation raise concerns about robust security practices. Users should verify the presence of advanced security features before engaging.

4. WHOIS Lookup ¶

A WHOIS lookup provides insights into domain ownership and registration details:

• Domain: fxinterpan.com
• Registrar: Information from WHOIS tools (e.g., ICANN Lookup) typically includes registration date, registrant, and contact details. For fxinterpan.com, the domain appears to be registered, but specific details (e.g., registrant name, location) are often redacted for privacy under GDPR or registrar policies.
• Registration Date: Based on the broker’s claimed history (licenses from 2003–2004), the domain should ideally reflect a long registration history. Without real-time WHOIS data, I cannot confirm the exact date, but a recently registered domain (e.g., within 1–2 years) would be a red flag for a broker claiming a long history.
• Privacy Protection: If WHOIS data is hidden via privacy protection, this is common but reduces transparency. Reputable brokers often disclose corporate ownership to build trust. Assessment: Without specific WHOIS data, I cannot draw definitive conclusions. Users should perform a WHOIS lookup to verify the domain’s age and ownership. A recently registered domain or hidden ownership could indicate higher risk.

5. IP and Hosting Analysis ¶

IP and hosting analysis reveals the technical infrastructure behind the website:

• IP Address: Using tools like Site24x7 or Pingdom, the website’s IP can be resolved. Without real-time access, I cannot provide the exact IP, but it should be hosted on a reputable provider (e.g., AWS, Cloudflare) for reliability and security.
• Hosting Provider: The hosting provider’s reputation impacts uptime and security. Poor hosting (e.g., shared servers with low-cost providers) increases the risk of downtime or vulnerabilities. The ForexBrokerz review noted poor website presentation, which may suggest suboptimal hosting or development.
• Geolocation: The server’s location should align with the broker’s claimed operations (Indonesia). A mismatch (e.g., servers in an unrelated country) could raise concerns, though this is not uncommon with global CDNs like Cloudflare.
• DDoS Protection: Financial websites should use DDoS mitigation (e.g., via Cloudflare or Akamai). No data confirms whether InterPan implements such measures. Assessment: The lack of specific IP or hosting data limits analysis. Poor website presentation suggests potential hosting deficiencies. Users should check the site’s IP and hosting provider to ensure they align with industry standards for financial services.

6. Social Media Presence ¶

Social media presence reflects a broker’s engagement and reputation:

• Active Profiles: There is no mention of InterPan’s social media accounts (e.g., Twitter/X, Facebook, LinkedIn) in the provided data. Reputable brokers typically maintain active profiles to engage clients and share updates.
• User Feedback: Social media platforms like Twitter/X or Reddit often reveal user sentiment. The absence of visible social media activity suggests low market presence or deliberate avoidance of public scrutiny.
• Red Flags: Inactive or nonexistent social media profiles can indicate a lack of transparency or limited operations, especially for a broker claiming a long history. Assessment: InterPan’s apparent lack of social media presence is a concern, as it limits transparency and user engagement. Users should search for official profiles and review any feedback for signs of legitimacy or complaints.

7. Red Flags and Potential Risk Indicators ¶

Red flags and risk indicators highlight potential issues with the broker:

• Lack of Transparency: Missing information on trading conditions (spreads, leverage, etc.) is a significant red flag, as noted in the ForexBrokerz review.
• Poor Website Presentation: The website’s “clunky” design and poor navigation suggest a lack of investment in user experience, which is atypical for reputable brokers.
• User Complaint: The reported loss of an entire investment and accusations of unprofessional conduct are serious red flags.
• Regulatory Concerns: While regulated in Indonesia, the local watchdog is less stringent than top-tier regulators, increasing risk.
• No Islamic Account Confirmation: Despite operating in a predominantly Muslim country, InterPan does not explicitly offer Islamic accounts, which is unusual for the region.
• Limited Online Presence: The scarcity of reviews, social media activity, or industry mentions suggests low visibility, which can correlate with higher risk. Assessment: Multiple red flags, including transparency issues, poor website quality, a severe complaint, and weaker regulatory oversight, elevate InterPan’s risk profile. These indicators warrant caution.

8. Website Content Analysis ¶

Analyzing the website’s content provides insights into professionalism and transparency:

• Platform Offering: InterPan offers MetaTrader 5 (MT5), a reputable trading platform known for advanced charting and automation. However, older MT4 indicators and Expert Advisors are incompatible, which may limit appeal for some traders.
• Content Quality: The ForexBrokerz review criticized the website’s poor presentation, including clunky sub-menus and inadequate service descriptions.
• Missing Information: Key details (e.g., spreads, leverage, payment methods) are not provided, reducing transparency.
• Regulatory Claims: The website mentions Indonesian regulation, but without verifiable license numbers or links to regulatory databases, this claim is hard to substantiate. Assessment: The use of MT5 is a positive point, but poor content quality, missing information, and lack of verifiable regulatory details undermine trust. Users should demand clear disclosures before trading.

9. Regulatory Status ¶

Regulatory status is a cornerstone of a broker’s legitimacy:

• Claimed Regulation: InterPan claims to be regulated by Indonesia’s BAPPEBTI, with licenses from 2003–2004.
• Regulator Reputation: BAPPEBTI is less stringent than top-tier regulators (e.g., FCA, ASIC). It may not enforce segregated accounts or compensation schemes, increasing client risk.
• Verification: No license number or regulatory database link is provided in the referenced data, making verification challenging. Reputable brokers typically display this information prominently.
• Global Operations: If InterPan serves clients outside Indonesia, it may require additional licenses (e.g., CySEC for EU clients). There is no evidence of such licenses. Assessment: The claimed Indonesian regulation provides some oversight, but its weaker standards and lack of verifiable details raise concerns. Users should confirm the license directly with BAPPEBTI and check for additional licenses if trading from other jurisdictions.

10. User Precautions ¶

To mitigate risks when considering InterPan, users should:

• Verify Regulation: Contact BAPPEBTI to confirm InterPan’s license status and check for any disciplinary actions.
• Start Small: Deposit a minimal amount initially to test the platform’s functionality, withdrawal process, and customer support.
• Research Reviews: Seek recent user reviews on independent platforms (e.g., Forex Peace Army, Trustpilot) to assess current performance.
• Check Security: Ensure the client portal uses 2FA and verify the website’s SSL certificate before entering sensitive data.
• Demand Transparency: Request clear information on trading conditions, fees, and fund protection policies before committing.
• Monitor Accounts: Regularly check account activity and withdraw profits promptly to minimize exposure. Assessment: These precautions can help users reduce risks, but the broker’s red flags suggest exploring more established alternatives first.

11. Potential Brand Confusion ¶

Brand confusion occurs when a broker’s branding resembles another entity, potentially misleading users:

• Name Similarity: “InterPan” could be confused with other financial entities, such as Interbank or Pan-Asian brokers. However, no specific instances of brand confusion are noted in the data.
• Website Design: Poor website presentation may inadvertently mimic low-quality or scam brokers, increasing perceived risk.
• Regional Focus: Operating in Indonesia, InterPan may not face significant brand confusion globally due to its limited presence. Assessment: There is no strong evidence of deliberate brand confusion, but the generic name and poor website quality could inadvertently align with less reputable brokers. Users should verify the official website (https://fxinterpan.com/) to avoid phishing or clone sites.

Conclusion ¶

InterPan (https://fxinterpan.com/) presents a mixed profile with significant concerns:

• Strengths: Offers MetaTrader 5, claims Indonesian regulation, and has a long purported history (since 2003–2004).
• Weaknesses: A severe user complaint, lack of transparency, poor website presentation, weaker regulatory oversight, and limited online presence raise red flags.
• Risk Level: Moderately high due to transparency issues, regulatory limitations, and reported financial loss.
• Recommendations: Approach with caution. Verify regulatory status, demand clear trading conditions, and start with a small deposit. Consider more established brokers with stronger regulation (e.g., FCA, ASIC) for greater security. Next Steps for Users:

1. Perform a WHOIS lookup to confirm domain age and ownership.
2. Check BAPPEBTI’s website for InterPan’s license details.
3. Search for recent reviews on independent platforms.
4. Test the website’s security features and client portal before depositing funds. If you need specific tools or further analysis (e.g., real-time WHOIS or IP lookup), let me know, and I can guide you on how to proceed!