context safety score
A score of 30/100 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.l23arg45elk.sbs' directly incorporates 'allegrolokalnie', impersonating Allegro Lokalnie, a major Polish e-commerce/classifieds platform. The subdomain mimics the brand name to deceive users into believing they are visiting the legitimate site. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.l23arg45elk.sbs)
phishing
The domain is constructed to impersonate Allegro Lokalnie using a lookalike subdomain on a suspicious TLD (.sbs), a pattern consistent with phishing infrastructure targeting users of the legitimate marketplace. TLS is not connected and certificate is invalid, indicating a hastily-deployed or non-operational phishing page. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.l23arg45elk.sbs)
malicious redirect
The domain uses a randomly-generated-looking parent domain ('l23arg45elk.sbs') with the brand name as a subdomain. This structure is commonly used in redirect chains and phishing kits where the landing page may redirect victims to credential harvesting pages. TLS failure (connected=false) suggests the page may gate content or redirect based on user-agent or referrer. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.l23arg45elk.sbs, TLS: connected=false)
credential harvesting
Allegro Lokalnie impersonation domains are frequently used to harvest login credentials or payment details from Polish marketplace users. The combination of brand-name subdomain, random parent domain, and invalid TLS is a signature pattern of credential harvesting infrastructure. (location: domain: allegrolokalnie.l23arg45elk.sbs)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/allegrolokalnie.l23arg45elk.sbsCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
allegrolokalnie.l23arg45elk.sbs currently scores 30/100 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.