Is abxxx.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

12 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

malicious redirect

Popunder/tabunder ad network configured to force-redirect users to 'https://kt.innaxx.com/in/2652/...' on every page load (Math.random() < 1 is always true), unconditionally overwriting force_url for geo-targeted countries (IE, CA, US, UK, GB). A separate force_url override sends traffic to 'http://nexttads.com/get/?spot_id=526200&cat=25' for 'Donny' traffic segments. (location: page.html:448-459, page-text.txt:362-375)

high

malicious redirect

'neverblock' configuration in OnPVFhVe object references 'boannre.com' as a loader and iframe domain for ad-block bypass: loaderUrl '//boannre.com/saber/upornia/confusion/' and ifrm 'https://boannre.com/saber/ball/nomad/'. This domain is used to circumvent ad blockers and silently load external content. (location: page.html:88, page-text.txt:3)

medium

malicious redirect

Push notification 'subInterstitialSettings' contains a directLink to 'https://online-hd.amazingcontent.site/?tag_id=93577&cl=3&click=1', an external site used as a fallback redirect destination for push subscription interstitials without user consent transparency. (location: page.html:92 (window._bdrpkhq4f6 config), page-text.txt:7)

medium

hidden content

A single-character element '<i style="font-size:0.1px">...</i>' is embedded inside the #app div. Text rendered at 0.1px font size is effectively invisible to users but present in the DOM, potentially used to hide content from human visitors while remaining parseable by crawlers or AI agents. (location: page.html:696)

low

hidden content

Yandex Metrika tracking pixel loaded via a hidden noscript img tag at 'https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/95196578' with style 'position:absolute; left:-9999px;' — positioned off-screen to silently track users without visible indication, including webvisor (session recording) enabled. (location: page.html:49)

medium

social engineering

Push notification ad format (spot_id 415650) is configured to solicit browser push notification subscriptions, with track_sub_url pointing to 'https://notification.tubecup.net/in/subscription-offers'. Combined with frequency capping resets tied to referrer/campaign parameters, this is designed to maximize unwanted subscription acquisition. (location: page.html:92 (push spot config), page-text.txt:7)

medium

obfuscated code

Dynamically loaded script sources use randomized/obfuscated path segments (e.g., '/azy3hafrmv/dkz5blq0w4.js', '/azy3hafrmv/09bqyqa8u1.js', '/jg00emskbj/j6w638d6xw.js', '/ticker/duayn7.10.15.8cde3807697a1d4da32d2d2f463d0c63.js') that obscure the script's purpose and origin. The filename 'previewlib.20210114.decoded.js' vs 'previewl1b.20210114.1.js' (using digit '1' in place of letter 'l') suggests deliberate obfuscation to evade detection. (location: page.html:75-78, 90, 93)

low

obfuscated code

Multiple ad-network verification meta tags with opaque token values (Trafficstars, offergate-verification, trafficox, 6a97888e-site-verification, 5f0ada9c...) indicate relationships with multiple ad traffic brokers, some of which may route malvertising. The combination of many ad-network tokens is consistent with a site monetized through low-quality or malicious ad exchanges. (location: page.html:11-16)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/abxxx.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is abxxx.com safe for AI agents to use?

abxxx.com currently scores 43/100 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.