Is 9animetv.to safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
27/100

context safety score

A score of 27/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
70
content
0
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

brand impersonation

Site at 9animetv.to claims to be the 'only official website of 9anime' and explicitly positions itself as the legitimate successor to the original 9anime.to, while itself operating on a different domain. The page simultaneously warns users about fake/clone sites while being a clone or rebranded version of the original property, creating confusion about authenticity. (location: page.html:322-329, page-text.txt:230-237)

medium

social engineering

The page employs fear-based social engineering by warning users that 'multiple fake copies that are prone to viruses and malware came into existence' and repeatedly urging users to 'visit our official 9anime website only,' driving exclusive trust toward this domain. This tactic is commonly used by impersonator sites to dissuade users from visiting the real original. (location: page.html:282-284, page-text.txt:191-193)

high

credential harvesting

The page contains a modal login form (id='login-form') that collects email and password fields via POST with no visible action URL specified, meaning credentials are submitted to the current domain. Combined with the site's unclear legitimacy and brand impersonation context, this form poses a credential harvesting risk. (location: page.html:551-580)

critical

obfuscated code

Two near-identical heavily obfuscated JavaScript blocks are embedded in the page (tagged 'ipp tag' and 'data-verify=1'). The code uses a character-interleaving string encoding technique to hide method names and strings, dynamically constructs DOM elements (likely hidden iframes), intercepts document methods including querySelector, overrides localStorage/sessionStorage APIs, and patches window.location. This is consistent with ad-fraud, fingerprinting, or browser environment manipulation scripts loaded from yb23b.com. The code runs unconditionally on page load. (location: page.html:671-675, page-text.txt:572-575)

high

malicious redirect

The obfuscated 'ipp tag' script loads an external resource from yb23b.com (data-verifysrc='https://yb23b.com/vignette.min.js'), an unknown domain with no reputation context. The obfuscated inline code patches document.querySelector and window.location, which can silently redirect users or inject content. This is a known pattern for malvertising and drive-by redirect payloads. (location: page.html:672)

medium

hidden content

An ad/script block is commented out in the HTML (lines 285-294) referencing a 'pubbidgeartag' ad network with zone ID 10384. While currently commented, its presence suggests the site has served or is prepared to serve third-party ad injection scripts. Additionally, the two obfuscated scripts execute in hidden iframe contexts (dynamically created with style set to hide them), processing content invisible to the user. (location: page.html:285-294, page.html:672-674)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/9animetv.to

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is 9animetv.to safe for AI agents to use?

9animetv.to currently scores 27/100 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 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

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

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.