context safety score
A score of 72/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
malicious redirect
JavaScript back-button hijacking: pushes 20 fake history entries then intercepts popstate to force redirect to /outout.php after 1ms delay, trapping users and preventing normal browser back navigation. (location: page.html:28 - inline script block using history.pushState loop and popstate listener)
malicious redirect
Back/forward navigation intercept: detects TYPE_BACK_FORWARD performance navigation type and immediately redirects to /out.php?link=backlinkview, preventing users from returning to a prior page. (location: page.html:24-27 - window.performance.navigation.type check)
malicious redirect
onclick redind() function sets a 1500ms delayed redirect to /outout.php on every category thumbnail click, sending users to an intermediate redirect endpoint before reaching intended content. (location: page.html:18-20 - redind() function definition; applied via onclick on all anchor elements lines 81-678)
malicious redirect
Global <base target='_blank'> forces all links to open in new tabs, combined with meta referrer='unsafe-url' which leaks full URLs including query strings to third-party destinations, enabling traffic and data leakage. (location: page.html:15-16 - <base target='_blank'> and <meta name='referrer' content='unsafe-url'>)
malicious redirect
Third-party ad iframes loaded from asg.snuffilm.com (domain name contains 'snuff' - a term associated with violent/illegal content) with sandbox permissions allow-scripts, allow-popups, allow-forms, allow-same-origin, enabling popups and form submissions from ad content. (location: page.html:747-757 - four iframes sourced from //asg.snuffilm.com/api/spots/56334-56337)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/24h-porn.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
24h-porn.com currently scores 72/100 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.