Is a-contratiempo-ska-jazz.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
68/100

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.

identity
82
behavior
80
content
57
graph
71

5 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

The scanned URL (a-contratiempo-ska-jazz.hydr0.org) redirects to content served under the mp3.cc domain. The page canonical URL and all internal links point to mp3.cc, indicating the subdomain acts as a redirect/proxy layer to the mp3.cc music piracy service. The brin-context notes 1 redirect was detected. (location: page.html:9 - canonical href https://mp3.cc/t/3540928967-a-contratiempo-ska-jazz/)

medium

brand impersonation

The site operates under a subdomain of hydr0.org (using zero instead of letter 'o' in 'hydro') while presenting itself as MP3.cc and branding all content with MP3.cc logos, navigation, and copyright notices. The hydr0.org domain with leet-style substitution mimics a legitimate brand while serving third-party content, and MP3 download URLs embed 'Hydr0.org' in filenames (e.g., 'A_Contratiempo_Ska-Jazz_-_Mr._Pickles_(Hydr0.org).mp3'). (location: page.html:5 - title tag; page.html:228-343 - data-url filenames containing (Hydr0.org))

medium

malicious redirect

All audio file playback URLs route through fine.sunproxy.net, a third-party proxy/CDN not affiliated with either hydr0.org or mp3.cc. Audio streaming is proxied through this intermediary domain, which could intercept traffic, serve malicious content, or track users. The base64-encoded path parameters in these URLs (flagged as 7 suspicious base64 blobs in tier 2 scan) obscure the actual file routing logic. (location: page.html:228 - data-url https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/NDgw... (7 instances))

low

hidden content

Seven base64-encoded blobs are embedded in data-url attributes of playlist play links. While these appear to encode proxied file paths for audio streaming, the encoding obscures the actual destination and parameters being passed to fine.sunproxy.net, preventing transparent inspection of what is being requested or transmitted. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342 - data-url attributes with base64 path segments on fine.sunproxy.net)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/a-contratiempo-ska-jazz.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is a-contratiempo-ska-jazz.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

a-contratiempo-ska-jazz.hydr0.org 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.

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

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.