context safety score
A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain 'afriregister.rwudrp.php' uses a suspicious multi-extension pattern (.rwudrp.php) that mimics a legitimate-sounding registry service ('afriregister') while using a deceptive TLD-like suffix. This pattern is commonly used in phishing infrastructure to appear credible while evading detection. (location: metadata.json: domain field)
brand impersonation
The subdomain/domain name 'afriregister' appears to impersonate a legitimate African domain registrar or registry authority, potentially targeting users seeking domain registration services in the African region. (location: metadata.json: domain field / .brin-context.md: URL)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) on a site that presents itself via HTTPS. This indicates the site may be serving content over an invalid or spoofed TLS configuration, consistent with infrastructure used for malicious redirects or credential interception via SSL stripping. (location: metadata.json: tls object)
hidden content
The context file references a 'page-hidden.txt' for extracted hidden content, and the page.html and page-text.txt files are completely empty despite the domain resolving and being scanned. This absence of retrievable content combined with a failed TLS connection suggests cloaking behavior — serving different content to scanners versus real users. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/afriregister.rwudrp.phpCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
afriregister.rwudrp.php 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.
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.