Is arcor.de safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
36/100

context safety score

A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
55
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

high

hidden instruction

high hidden content ratio detected in DOM

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from domain arcor.de but presents itself entirely as 'Vodafone live' (title, OG tags, canonical URL, branding, and all content point to live.vodafone.de). The arcor.de domain is not a Vodafone-owned property; it is a legacy German ISP brand. Users and AI agents resolving arcor.de would encounter a fully Vodafone-branded portal, creating a brand identity mismatch that could be exploited for impersonation or trust abuse. (location: page.html line 3 (<title>), line 461 (canonical href=https://live.vodafone.de/), line 473-484 (OG/Twitter meta tags referencing live.vodafone.de))

medium

credential harvesting

An email/credential login form is embedded directly on the page under the label 'E-MAIL & CLOUD LOGIN' with the prompt 'Logg Dich hier sicher in Deinen Vodafone E-Mail & Cloud-Account ein.' The form offers 'Login mit Mein Vodafone' and 'Login mit E-Mail-Zugangsdaten' on a domain (arcor.de) that does not match the canonical Vodafone login domain (live.vodafone.de). Credentials submitted here could be intercepted if the serving infrastructure is not fully controlled by Vodafone. (location: page-text.txt line 1 (E-MAIL & CLOUD LOGIN section); page.html line 441 (emailLogin CSS block and login form markup))

low

malicious redirect

The page loads a dynamically injected script pair (MoltenBundle.top.js / MoltenBundle.bottom.js) via inline JavaScript that selects the script source based on a URL query parameter 'ada=1', switching between /preview/ and production paths. While likely an ad/content delivery mechanism, the pattern of runtime script source selection based on URL parameters is a known vector for ad injection and open redirect abuse. (location: page.html line 459 (inline script: MoltenBundle src switching on window.location.search))

low

hidden content

A `.sr-only` CSS class is defined that renders elements visually hidden (1x1 pixel, clipped, overflow hidden, absolute position) but keeps them in the DOM and accessible to screen readers and automated agents/crawlers. Content placed in such elements would be invisible to human users but readable by AI agents processing the page. (location: page.html line 430 (.sr-only[data-v-4517b5fa] style block))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/arcor.de

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is arcor.de safe for AI agents to use?

arcor.de currently scores 36/100 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.