context safety score
A score of 34/100 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 'allegrolokalnie.340jwmi345jiqw23.sbs' impersonates Allegro Lokalnie, a major Polish online marketplace. The subdomain 'allegrolokalnie' is prepended to a randomly-generated, nonsensical domain '340jwmi345jiqw23.sbs', a classic typosquatting/subdomain-abuse technique used to deceive users into believing they are on a legitimate Allegro platform. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.340jwmi345jiqw23.sbs)
phishing
The combination of brand impersonation (Allegro Lokalnie) with a suspicious .sbs TLD and randomized domain string is consistent with a phishing infrastructure. The site failed TLS connection entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false), which is atypical for a legitimate service and typical of hastily-deployed phishing pages. (location: url: https://allegrolokalnie.340jwmi345jiqw23.sbs)
credential harvesting
Phishing pages impersonating Allegro Lokalnie are commonly used to harvest login credentials and payment information from Polish consumers. The domain pattern and TLS failure are consistent with credential harvesting campaigns targeting Allegro users. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.340jwmi345jiqw23.sbs)
hidden content
The page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt files are all empty, yet the domain resolved enough to be scanned. This may indicate the page serves content conditionally (e.g., only to targeted geolocations or user-agents), actively hiding its payload from automated scanners — a known evasion technique used by phishing kits. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/allegrolokalnie.340jwmi345jiqw23.sbsCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
allegrolokalnie.340jwmi345jiqw23.sbs currently scores 34/100 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.