MY REVIEW OF HOSTINGER
My personal assessment of Hostinger after the documented malware-scanner incidents, technical contradictions, complaint handling and September recurrence.
I have been a Hostinger customer for less than one year, but I prepaid for approximately five years of hosting through a promotional offer. I deeply regret that decision and the money committed to it. My loss of confidence came before I had completed my first year as a customer, and the September recurrence reinforced rather than resolved the concerns documented during August.
Why I no longer recommend Hostinger
My negative assessment is based on the combined record: destructive malware-scanner action against my files, technical explanations that changed materially, statements later corrected or withdrawn, an allowlist representation that never resulted in an activated allowlist, incomplete transparency about complete-file submission to CloudLinux, unresolved record questions and a new removal after Hostinger had issued its final internal review.
The prepaid-service problem is practical, not theoretical
Because I prepaid several years of service, I am left with an unpleasant practical choice: continue using a platform in which I have lost confidence or walk away from years of hosting that have already been paid for. That financial commitment is one reason the quality of the technical and complaint handling matters so much to me.
The impact on my work
The dispute materially interfered with my ability to work normally on software that had taken approximately a year to develop. Time that should have gone into development was instead spent preserving backups, hashing files, reconstructing timelines, comparing statements, documenting file states and repeatedly asking the provider to preserve and explain its own records.
My conclusion
Based on my documented experience, I do not recommend Hostinger for important website files, proprietary software, active development work or business-critical web applications where the owner cannot accept destructive automated action without a sufficiently clear technical record and reliable recovery path. That conclusion is my personal assessment, and the other sections of this case file contain the documentary record on which it is based.