context safety score
A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
URL is a raw IP address (117.209.7.226) with no associated domain name. TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false), meaning the site either serves content over unencrypted HTTP or has a broken/self-hosted HTTPS setup. Raw IP hosting with failed TLS is a strong indicator of a malicious or compromised server used for phishing, malware distribution, or command-and-control infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: url=https://117.209.7.226, tls.connected=false)
phishing
The site is hosted on a bare IP address with no domain, unknown hosting reputation, no WHOIS data, and a completely failed TLS connection. This combination is a canonical pattern for phishing infrastructure: no legitimate business uses a bare IP with broken TLS for user-facing content. The page returned empty content, consistent with a cloaked phishing page that only renders for targeted victims or specific user-agent/referrer conditions. (location: metadata.json: domain=117.209.7.226, hosting.reputation=Unknown, tls.connected=false)
hidden content
The page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt files are all empty despite the server being reachable enough to attempt a TLS connection. This is consistent with content cloaking — the server detects automated scanners and returns an empty response, while serving malicious content to real victims. Cloaking is a deliberate evasion technique used by phishing and malware delivery sites. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/117.209.7.226Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
117.209.7.226 currently scores 43/100 with a suspicious verdict and low confidence. The goal is to protect agents from high-risk context before they act on it. Treat this as a decision signal: higher scores suggest lower observed risk, while lower scores mean you should add review or block this domain.
Use the score as a policy threshold: 80–100 is safe, 50–79 is caution, 20–49 is suspicious, and 0–19 is dangerous. Teams often auto-allow safe, require human review for caution/suspicious, and block dangerous.
brin evaluates four dimensions: identity (source trust), behavior (runtime patterns), content (malicious instructions), and graph (relationship risk). Analysis runs in tiers: static signals, deterministic pattern checks, then AI semantic analysis when needed.
Identity checks source trust, behavior checks unusual runtime patterns, content checks for malicious instructions, and graph checks risky relationships to other entities. Looking at sub-scores helps you understand why an entity passed or failed.
brin performs risk assessments on external context before it reaches an AI agent. It scores that context for threats like prompt injection, hijacking, credential harvesting, and supply chain attacks, so teams can decide whether to block, review, or proceed safely.
No. A safe verdict means no significant risk signals were detected in this scan. It is not a formal guarantee; assessments are automated and point-in-time, so combine scores with your own controls and periodic re-checks.
Re-check before high-impact actions such as installs, upgrades, connecting MCP servers, executing remote code, or granting secrets. Use the API in CI or runtime gates so decisions are based on the latest scan.
Learn more in threat detection docs, how scoring works, and the API overview.
Assessments are automated and may contain errors. Findings are risk indicators, not confirmed threats. This is a point-in-time assessment; security posture can change.
integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.