context safety score
A score of 55/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
brand impersonation
The page is served from hydr0.org (subdomain 23-25hz-argy-baset.hydr0.org) but displays the complete mp3.cc brand identity: logo, site name 'MP3.cc', copyright notice '© 2017–2026 MP3.cc', navigation links, CSS, and JS all sourced from mp3.cc. There are 87 references to mp3.cc within the page. The page is a scraped mirror of mp3.cc content presented under a different domain, constituting brand impersonation of mp3.cc. (location: page.html:5 (title), page.html:11 (og:site_name), page.html:33-36 (logo), page.html:614 (footer copyright))
malicious redirect
Tier 2 analysis detected 1 redirect. The canonical link (page.html:9) points to https://mp3.cc/t/1496930885-23-25hz-argy-baset/ while the actual serving domain is hydr0.org. This canonical tag misdirects search engines and crawlers to believe the content originates from mp3.cc, functioning as a deceptive SEO redirect signal. (location: page.html:9 (canonical link rel))
hidden content
The page uses a 'noarchive' robots meta tag, which prevents web archive services from caching the page. This is an anti-forensic measure that obstructs evidence preservation and historical analysis of the page's content, consistent with deliberate evasion of monitoring tools. (location: page.html:8 (meta name=robots content=noarchive))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/23-25hz-argy-baset.hydr0.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
23-25hz-argy-baset.hydr0.org currently scores 55/100 with a caution verdict and medium 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.