context safety score
A score of 38/100 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
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
prompt injection
HTML comment '<!-- brin-agent/1.0 -->' is embedded in the page source, targeting AI security scanning agents by name. This is an attempt to signal or manipulate agent behavior during automated analysis. (location: page.html:14)
hidden content
A div with CSS positioning 'position:absolute; left:-250px; top:-250px' renders content completely off-screen and invisible to users but present in the DOM. This is a classic hidden content technique used to conceal data from human visitors while exposing it to scrapers or agents. (location: page.html:79)
social engineering
The page mimics a Cloudflare CAPTCHA challenge ('One more step', 'Please complete the security check to access') using its own reCAPTCHA sitekey rather than the legitimate site's key. A commented-out LinkedIn sitekey ('linkedin's') suggests this template is used to impersonate various brands' CAPTCHA flows to deceive users into thinking they are accessing a trusted site. (location: page.html:25-29, 108-109)
brand impersonation
The page clones the visual design and UX flow of Cloudflare's interstitial challenge page (layout, wording, reCAPTCHA widget placement) while operating from archive.li. The JavaScript also references a commented LinkedIn sitekey, suggesting multi-brand impersonation capability. (location: page.html:107-109)
malicious redirect
A setInterval beacon fires every 50 minutes (3,000,000ms) sending a no-referrer, no-cors fetch to 'https://gyrovague.com/tag/<random_string>/' — an unrelated third-party domain. This covert beaconing exfiltrates visit timing data to an external server without any user notice or disclosure. (location: page.html:136)
hidden content
The reCAPTCHA sitekey in the script is labeled '// my' and a LinkedIn sitekey is commented out ('// linkedin's'). This reveals the operator is using their own sitekey to intercept CAPTCHA completions, potentially harvesting verified-human tokens before proxying users to intended destinations. (location: page.html:108-109)
credential harvesting
After CAPTCHA completion, the XHR POST to '/cdn-cgi/l/chk_captcha' includes the full original URL ('location=' parameter). Combined with the operator-controlled sitekey, this allows the site to collect CAPTCHA response tokens and original destination URLs, which can be replayed or used to bypass bot protections on third-party sites on behalf of the visitor. (location: page.html:112-114)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/archive.liCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
archive.li 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.
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.