context safety score
A score of 34/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
brand impersonation
The domain app-ads-services.com serves a page that fully impersonates Google's CAPTCHA/unusual traffic interstitial, including the exact Google branding text, Google reCAPTCHA enterprise widget (sitekey 6LfwuyUTAAAAAOAmoS0fdqijC2PbbdH4kjq62Y1b), Google Terms of Service links, and Google support links. The page title is literally 'https://www.google.com/' to reinforce the deception. (location: page.html:3-35, metadata.json (domain: app-ads-services.com))
phishing
A non-Google domain (app-ads-services.com) is presenting a convincing replica of a Google security checkpoint page. The hidden form field 'continue' is set to 'https://www.google.com/', suggesting users who solve the CAPTCHA are redirected to Google, creating a seamless phishing flow that harvests CAPTCHA tokens or interaction signals under false pretenses. (location: page.html:17)
malicious redirect
The form posts to 'index' (relative path on app-ads-services.com) with a hidden 'continue' parameter pointing to 'https://www.google.com/'. This pattern is consistent with an open-redirect or token-harvesting relay: the attacker's server receives the POST (including the reCAPTCHA response token and hidden 'q' value), then bounces the user to Google to avoid suspicion. (location: page.html:7, page.html:17)
credential harvesting
The form submits a hidden opaque token in field 'q' (value: EhAmABkAAAAtCQAAAAAAABwBGI2CoM0GIimnLaI69sdaBJIRUWmvPSgnZlQ2J8UJN1fPH117W89OoWM4ZEYLcQviZzICclJaAUM) along with the reCAPTCHA response to the attacker-controlled endpoint 'index' on app-ads-services.com. This opaque token may encode session, identity, or tracking data being exfiltrated. (location: page.html:17)
social engineering
The page uses authoritative Google security language ('Our systems have detected unusual traffic', 'in violation of the Terms of Service') to create urgency and legitimacy, pressuring users to interact with the CAPTCHA form on a fraudulent third-party domain. The onload handler also calls solveSimpleChallenge(0,0), suggesting automated challenge-solving to silently fingerprint or process visitors. (location: page.html:4, page.html:21-27)
prompt injection
The page body onload attribute contains: 'if(solveSimpleChallenge) {solveSimpleChallenge(0,0);}' — a call to a function not defined in the page. If an AI agent or browser automation tool renders this page and exposes a 'solveSimpleChallenge' hook in its execution context, this would automatically invoke it. This is consistent with a prompt/execution injection targeting headless browsers or agentic crawlers. (location: page.html:4)
hidden content
The 'infoDiv' element is rendered with 'display:none' and contains the full Google policy explanation text. While this is part of the Google interstitial clone, the hidden div is used to make the page appear more legitimate to scanners while controlling what is visually presented to users, and its content matches the page-hidden.txt extraction exactly. (location: page.html:26-28, page-hidden.txt:1)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/app-ads-services.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
app-ads-services.com currently scores 34/100 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.