Is alohatube.com safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
46/100

context safety score

A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
50
content
27
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation

high

obfuscated code

Heavily obfuscated JavaScript present in the page head. The script uses a string-array rotation pattern (a0_0x38f7/a0_0x38e6), numeric hex arithmetic obfuscation, and a Unicode symbol string ('h') as an initial encoded payload. This is a classic JavaScript obfuscation technique (similar to obfuscator.io output) used to hide the true intent of code from static analysis. The obfuscated block generates and injects CSS dynamically, but the full decoded behavior cannot be verified without execution. (location: page.html:70-73 (<script> block in <head>))

medium

hidden content

The page sets a long-lived tracking cookie (expires 2031) via inline JavaScript before the DOM loads: document.cookie='tv=1772640060; expires=Wed, 28 May 2031 11:37:01 GMT; domain=.alohatube.com; path=/;'. This cookie is set silently with no user consent notice, persists for ~5 years, and is scoped to the entire .alohatube.com domain. Combined with the 'pGetACookie' and 'mbv' cookie-checking functions, this enables persistent cross-session user tracking without disclosure. (location: page.html:26 (inline <script> in <head>))

medium

malicious redirect

The iframe ad units load content from a1tb.com (a CDN/ad domain closely tied to alohatube.com) with the sandbox attribute including 'allow-popups' and 'allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox'. The 'allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox' permission explicitly allows popups spawned by the iframe to break out of the sandbox context, enabling unrestricted navigation or popup windows that could redirect users to third-party destinations outside the sandbox's security restrictions. (location: page.html:138-143 (three <iframe> ad units in .advbox))

low

hidden content

The inline script at line 38 contains a frame-busting check: 'this.top.location !== this.location && (this.top.location = this.location)'. While a common anti-clickjacking technique, it can also be used to forcibly escape iframe embedding, which in adversarial contexts can redirect the top-level browsing context to the current page URL, overriding any parent frame navigation controls. (location: page.html:38 (inline <script> in <head>))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/alohatube.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is alohatube.com safe for AI agents to use?

alohatube.com currently scores 46/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.