Is 2-pac-and-ciara.hydr0.org safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
82
behavior
60
content
17
graph
70

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from domain '2-pac-and-ciara.hydr0.org' but fully impersonates MP3.cc: the title, logo, canonical tag, og:url, all internal navigation links, and copyright footer all reference 'mp3.cc'. The actual serving domain is a subdomain of hydr0.org, not mp3.cc. (location: page.html: <title>, <link rel='canonical'>, og:url, header logo href, footer copyright — all referencing mp3.cc while served from hydr0.org)

medium

malicious redirect

The scanned URL (https://2-pac-and-ciara.hydr0.org) performs at least one redirect (Tier 2 signal: Redirects=1) before presenting content that claims to be mp3.cc. Users navigating to this domain are redirected in a way that obscures the true origin of the content. (location: metadata.json / .brin-context.md: redirect count=1; canonical href in page.html pointing to https://mp3.cc/t/1887687958-2-pac-and-ciara/)

medium

obfuscated code

All 12 audio stream URLs are routed through 'fine.sunproxy.net/file/' with long base64-encoded path components (e.g. 'NDgwdkFuTUxJZ0tHbEJUVFE0QUZzNUtmT3Q5UlZlNlAv...'). These encoded URLs obfuscate the true destination of media requests and route all playback through a third-party proxy service, enabling potential traffic interception, ad injection, or malware delivery. (location: page.html lines 228, 247, 266, 285, 304, 323, 342, 361, 380, 399, 418, 437 — data-url attributes on playlist-play anchors)

low

social engineering

The footer displays the contact email 'hydrofm@yandex.com' while the page claims to be MP3.cc. This Yandex-hosted email is inconsistent with the MP3.cc brand identity, suggesting the operator is a third party using the MP3.cc brand to attract users to a separately operated service. (location: page.html line 614: <div id='foo-copyright'>&copy; 2017 &ndash; 2026 MP3.cc<br />hydrofm@yandex.com</div>)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/2-pac-and-ciara.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is 2-pac-and-ciara.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

2-pac-and-ciara.hydr0.org 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 25, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.