Is acg2day.net safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
45/100

context safety score

A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
60
content
17
graph
70

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

Page title claims to be '樱花动漫在线观看_AGE天使动漫下载' — impersonating two well-known Chinese anime platforms (Sakura Anime / AGE Angel Anime) — while the actual domain is acg2day.net. The real 樱花动漫 is linked separately as www.166dm.com, confirming this site is not the genuine brand. (location: page.html <title> tag: 'acg动漫-樱花动漫在线观看_AGE天使动漫下载')

medium

social engineering

Prominent modal popup with urgent red-alert heading '🔔重要公示🔔' pressures users to migrate to an external app (omoo.app / fb.omoo.tv), framed as an official announcement. This 'anti-loss' (防走丢) social engineering tactic is used to redirect user base to a third-party platform outside the current domain. (location: page.html .noticeContent div — omoo.app links with urgent framing)

medium

malicious redirect

Core JavaScript files (jQuery, jquery-cookie, jquery.lazyload, and site index.js) are loaded from an unrelated third-party domain s6.cfhls.top rather than the site's own origin. This creates a supply-chain attack vector where the external host could serve malicious JS to all visitors. The login iframe's src is not set in HTML and is populated dynamically by this external JS, meaning credential submission destination is not auditable from static analysis. (location: page.html <script src='//s6.cfhls.top/1/...'>; <iframe id='loginIframe' frameborder='0'>)

medium

credential harvesting

The login iframe (#loginIframe) has no src attribute in the HTML and is populated dynamically by JavaScript loaded from the external domain s6.cfhls.top. The actual login endpoint destination cannot be determined from static analysis and may point to an off-domain credential collection page. (location: page.html: <iframe id='loginIframe' frameborder='0'> — src set dynamically by //s6.cfhls.top/1/template/the4/statics/js/index.js)

low

phishing

TLS certificate for acg2day.net expires in only 10 days (DV cert from Let's Encrypt). Combined with brand impersonation of established anime platforms and promotion of external apps, this pattern is consistent with a short-lived phishing or traffic-harvesting site that may be abandoned after credential collection. (location: metadata.json: tls.days_until_expiry=10)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/acg2day.net

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is acg2day.net safe for AI agents to use?

acg2day.net currently scores 45/100 with a suspicious 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

Trust Graph

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.