Is anna-gemitaiz-madman.hydr0.org safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
49/100

context safety score

A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
60
content
24
graph
72

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

3 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

medium

malicious redirect

The page is hosted at anna-gemitaiz-madman.hydr0.org but all canonical links, assets (CSS/JS), and navigation point to mp3.cc. The subdomain acts as a redirect/proxy mirror of mp3.cc content, with the canonical tag explicitly pointing away to https://mp3.cc/t/2761112921-anna-gemitaiz-madman/. This is a doorway/shadow domain pattern used to siphon traffic or evade blocklists while serving a third-party site's content. (location: page.html:9 - <link rel='canonical' href='https://mp3.cc/t/2761112921-anna-gemitaiz-madman/'>)

medium

malicious redirect

All MP3 audio file download links route through fine.sunproxy.net, a third-party proxy domain not affiliated with mp3.cc or the hosting domain. The data-url attributes for all play buttons use obfuscated base64-encoded paths on fine.sunproxy.net (e.g. fine.sunproxy.net/file/NDgwd...). This intermediary proxy could perform traffic interception, inject malware into downloads, or track users covertly. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589,608,627 - data-url attributes)

high

brand impersonation

The site at anna-gemitaiz-madman.hydr0.org fully impersonates MP3.cc — it reproduces the MP3.cc logo, branding, layout, genre navigation, footer copyright (© 2017–2026 MP3.cc), and contact email (hydrofm@yandex.com). Users landing on this domain would believe they are on the legitimate mp3.cc website. The hydr0.org domain is distinct from mp3.cc, making this a clear brand impersonation. (location: page.html:5,9,11,33-36,652 - title, canonical, og:site_name, logo, footer copyright)

low

hidden content

The 12 suspicious base64 blobs flagged in Tier 2 analysis correspond to the obfuscated file tokens embedded in fine.sunproxy.net URLs (e.g. NDgwdkFuTUxJZ0tH...). While these appear to be encoded file path tokens for the proxy CDN, they are not human-readable and obscure the actual file destination, preventing users and security tools from inspecting where downloads originate. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589 - data-url base64 tokens in fine.sunproxy.net paths)

low

social engineering

The page presents itself as a legitimate free MP3 download service with familiar branding and genre navigation to build user trust, then routes all actual file downloads through an opaque third-party proxy (fine.sunproxy.net). The deceptive link count of 3 noted in Tier 2 is consistent with links that appear to point to mp3.cc but resolve through the shadow domain infrastructure. (location: page.html:204,229,248 - off-brand links including looz.net and deceptive download links)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/anna-gemitaiz-madman.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is anna-gemitaiz-madman.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

anna-gemitaiz-madman.hydr0.org currently scores 49/100 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 25, 2026

Verdict Scale

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

Trust Graph

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.