Is archive.fo safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
38/100

context safety score

A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

prompt injection

HTML comment '<!-- brin-agent/1.0 -->' is embedded in the page source, targeting AI agents or scanners by name. This is a deliberate attempt to signal or manipulate automated agents processing the page. (location: page.html:14)

high

hidden content

A div element is positioned off-screen at top:-250px and left:-250px (absolute positioning), rendering it invisible to users but readable by scrapers and AI agents. This is a classic hidden content technique. (location: page.html:79 (div with style containing 'left:-250px' and 'top:-250px'))

medium

social engineering

The page presents a fake or suspicious CAPTCHA checkpoint using the message 'One more step - Please complete the security check to access' with a custom reCAPTCHA sitekey. The JavaScript comment reveals the sitekey is labeled 'my' versus 'linkedin's', suggesting the operator is impersonating a Cloudflare-style challenge page to intercept user interactions. (location: page.html:25-29, page.html:108-109)

high

malicious redirect

After CAPTCHA completion, the page posts the user's full current URL (including hash/location) to '/cdn-cgi/l/chk_captcha' and then calls window.location.replace(h) to redirect to the harvested URL. The original href is captured before any history manipulation, enabling redirect to attacker-controlled destinations. (location: page.html:102-103, 111-120)

high

hidden content

A periodic beacon fires every 3,000,000ms (50 minutes) to 'https://gyrovague.com/tag/<random_string>/' with referrerPolicy:'no-referrer' and mode:'no-cors'. This is a covert tracking/exfiltration call to a third-party domain, designed to evade referer logging and CORS inspection. (location: page.html:136)

medium

brand impersonation

The page mimics a Cloudflare CAPTCHA challenge page in visual layout, language ('One more step', 'complete the security check', '/cdn-cgi/l/chk_captcha' endpoint path, reCAPTCHA widget) to deceive users into believing they are on a legitimate Cloudflare-protected site. The sitekey is custom ('my') not an official Cloudflare key. (location: page.html:25-140)

medium

hidden content

JavaScript manipulates browser history via window.history.pushState('/', '','/') to overwrite the URL displayed in the address bar before the user sees the real destination, masking the true navigation path. (location: page.html:103-104)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/archive.fo

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is archive.fo safe for AI agents to use?

archive.fo currently scores 38/100 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.

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.