context safety score
A score of 48/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain 'arm-msedge.net' combines 'arm' (ARM Holdings, a major semiconductor IP company) with 'msedge' (Microsoft Edge browser), creating a compound impersonation of two major technology brands in a single domain name. This pattern is characteristic of typosquatting or brand-abuse domains designed to appear legitimate. (location: domain: arm-msedge.net)
phishing
The domain combines two well-known tech brand names (ARM + Microsoft Edge) under a non-official TLD (.net instead of official microsoft.com or arm.com), a classic phishing domain construction pattern used to deceive users or automated agents into trusting the site. (location: domain: arm-msedge.net)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) meaning the site is either not serving content over HTTPS or is blocking automated access. Sites that fail TLS validation but maintain an active domain registration are often used as redirect intermediaries or infrastructure for malicious campaigns. (location: metadata.json: tls block)
social engineering
The domain name 'arm-msedge.net' is constructed to evoke trust by referencing two legitimate enterprise technology brands (ARM architecture and Microsoft Edge). This social engineering vector targets both human users and AI agents that may evaluate domain credibility based on recognized brand names embedded in the hostname. (location: domain: arm-msedge.net)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/arm-msedge.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
arm-msedge.net currently scores 48/100 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.
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.