context safety score
A score of 68/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses eval() with String.fromCharCode — common obfuscation
js obfuscation
JavaScript appears to use a common packer pattern (p,a,c,k,e,d)
obfuscated code
The entire page consists of a Dean Edwards p,a,c,k,e,d JavaScript packer obfuscation (eval-based). Deobfuscated logic reads and manipulates cookies named 'token', 'secret', and 'location', then calls window.location.reload() after a setTimeout. The obfuscation hides cookie-harvesting and redirect behavior from static scanners. (location: page.html:1 — eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,d){...}) wrapper covering all page logic)
credential harvesting
Deobfuscated script reads cookies named 'token' and 'secret' via getCookie(), stores derived values back into cookies ('t' and 'r'), and redirects the browser. This pattern is consistent with session token theft or credential relay — extracting authentication material from cookies and potentially exfiltrating or reusing it. (location: page.html:1 — obfuscated cookie manipulation: getCookie('token'), getCookie('secret'), document.cookie assignments)
malicious redirect
Deobfuscated script calls window.location.reload() inside a setTimeout(3000) after manipulating cookies. Combined with cookie theft logic, this forced reload is likely used to re-trigger a session hijack loop or redirect the victim after credential extraction. (location: page.html:1 — window.location.reload() inside setTimeout(3000) in obfuscated script)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/42xz.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
42xz.com currently scores 68/100 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.