context safety score
A score of 32/100 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
Domain 'amzndns-cn.cn' closely mimics Amazon ('amzn') branding combined with a DNS-service pretext ('dns') and a Chinese ccTLD ('.cn'), a classic typosquatting/brand-impersonation pattern designed to deceive users or automated agents into trusting the domain as Amazon-affiliated. (location: domain: amzndns-cn.cn)
phishing
The domain 'amzndns-cn.cn' combines Amazon brand impersonation with a .cn TLD and a DNS-service lure, consistent with phishing infrastructure targeting Amazon customers or services. TLS is not connected and no valid certificate is present, a common trait of hastily-deployed phishing pages. (location: domain: amzndns-cn.cn / metadata.json tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
malicious redirect
The site returned no page content (empty HTML and text) despite the domain being reachable enough for metadata collection. Empty or near-empty pages on brand-impersonating domains are frequently used as redirect staging points that forward victims to a credential-harvesting or malware payload page. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
credential harvesting
The combination of Amazon brand impersonation ('amzn'), a DNS/service pretext, absence of TLS, and empty visible content is a strong indicator of a credential-harvesting operation, likely targeting Amazon account credentials or AWS API keys under the guise of a DNS or account-verification service. (location: domain: amzndns-cn.cn / metadata.json)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/amzndns-cn.cnCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
amzndns-cn.cn currently scores 32/100 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.