context safety score
A score of 38/100 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.74324323.lat' impersonates Allegro Lokalnie, a major Polish e-commerce/classifieds platform (allegro.pl / allegrolokalnie.pl). The subdomain 'allegrolokalnie' is prepended to a random numeric domain '74324323.lat', a classic typosquatting/subdomain-abuse technique used to deceive users into believing they are on the legitimate Allegro Lokalnie platform. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.74324323.lat)
phishing
The domain structure (brand name as subdomain on a random numeric .lat TLD domain) is a well-established phishing pattern. The TLS certificate is invalid/not connected (connected=false, cert_valid=false), meaning the site either fails to serve HTTPS properly or is not yet active — consistent with a phishing infrastructure domain in preparation or already serving malicious content via HTTP. Combined with the brand impersonation, this strongly indicates a phishing campaign targeting Allegro Lokalnie users. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.74324323.lat, TLS metadata)
malicious redirect
The page HTML and visible text are empty, but the domain resolves with a known brand impersonation pattern. Empty page content combined with an active domain on suspicious infrastructure is consistent with a redirect-only phishing landing page or a domain parked for future malicious use, where the actual payload is delivered after a redirect chain not captured at scan time. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/allegrolokalnie.74324323.latCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
allegrolokalnie.74324323.lat 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.