context safety score
A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
credential harvesting
credential form posts to an off-domain endpoint (may be legitimate SSO/OAuth)
credential harvesting
Login form on a .ru domain (ad-pixel.ru) collects email (_username) and password (_password) via POST to /account/login. The domain name suggests an ad/tracking pixel service, not a login portal, making this a likely credential harvesting page masquerading as a legitimate SSO interface. (location: page.html:39-52)
brand impersonation
Page presents itself as 'Roxot | SSO' with Roxot branding (logo at /assets/img/roxot.svg) served from ad-pixel.ru — a domain entirely unrelated to Roxot. Roxot is a legitimate ad tech company; serving their branded login from ad-pixel.ru constitutes brand impersonation to deceive users into submitting credentials. (location: page.html:9, page.html:33)
phishing
The page is a full credential phishing kit: it clones a branded SSO login page (Roxot) on an unrelated .ru domain (ad-pixel.ru), collects username and password, and mimics a legitimate authentication flow including forgot-password and registration links. The combination of brand impersonation, credential form, and domain mismatch is a classic phishing pattern. (location: page.html:1-86)
social engineering
The page uses trust signals typical of legitimate enterprise SSO portals: professional UI framework (Bootstrap), branded logo, 'Sign me in' CTA, and password reset/registration flows — all designed to reduce user suspicion and increase likelihood of credential submission on a malicious domain. (location: page.html:30-52)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ad-pixel.ruCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ad-pixel.ru currently scores 38/100 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.
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.