context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
The domain 'adobelogin.com' impersonates Adobe by combining the brand name 'adobe' with 'login' to create a convincing fake login domain. Adobe's legitimate authentication domain is 'adobe.com' or 'adobeid.adobe.com'. This typosquat/combosquat is a classic brand impersonation technique targeting Adobe users. (location: domain: adobelogin.com)
phishing
The domain 'adobelogin.com' is constructed to deceive users into believing they are accessing an official Adobe login portal. Combining a major brand name with 'login' is a well-documented phishing domain pattern designed to harvest Adobe account credentials. (location: domain: adobelogin.com)
credential harvesting
A domain mimicking an Adobe login page (adobelogin.com) is highly likely intended to present a fake login form to capture Adobe account usernames and passwords. TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), indicating the site may be non-functional or recently stood up, consistent with a credential harvesting operation. (location: domain: adobelogin.com, metadata.json tls block)
malicious redirect
The TLS certificate is invalid and the connection could not be established (connected=false, san_match=false). Sites using deceptive brand-impersonation domains frequently serve as redirect hops or staging domains in phishing chains, forwarding victims to a live credential-harvesting page on another host. (location: metadata.json tls block)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/adobelogin.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
adobelogin.com currently scores 36/100 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.