Is ashibah-hippocoon-junkyards.hydr0.org safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
60
content
7
graph
71

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from ashibah-hippocoon-junkyards.hydr0.org but fully impersonates mp3.cc: it uses the mp3.cc logo, mp3.cc branding, loads all CSS and JS from mp3.cc, and includes a canonical tag pointing to mp3.cc. The hydr0.org domain is presenting itself as an official mp3.cc property without authorisation. (location: page.html:5,9,11,18,19,33,35 — title, canonical, og:site_name, stylesheet, script, logo href)

high

malicious redirect

The site is hosted on a subdomain of hydr0.org (ashibah-hippocoon-junkyards.hydr0.org) which appears to be a proxy/mirror of mp3.cc content. All audio download links redirect through fine.sunproxy.net, a third-party proxy domain not affiliated with mp3.cc, before serving MP3 files. The canonical tag also redirects users to mp3.cc. The pre-scan context confirms 1 redirect and a user-agent diff ratio of 0.43, indicating different content is served to different clients. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456 — all data-url attributes pointing to fine.sunproxy.net)

medium

malicious redirect

Audio file download links route through fine.sunproxy.net/file/ with base64-encoded parameters rather than directly from mp3.cc or a CDN. This proxying of media files through an intermediary domain with opaque base64 tokens is consistent with traffic interception, analytics harvesting, or serving alternate payloads based on user-agent/referrer. The high user-agent diff ratio (0.43) corroborates cloaking behaviour. (location: page.html:228 — data-url="https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/NDgwd...")

low

hidden content

The page comment block contains a Russian-language developer note ('чтобы показать #fixplayer-notification нужно добавить .js__notify для #fixplayer-lcd') embedded as an HTML comment. While this appears to be a legitimate developer note, it is in a different language than the rest of the site and is hidden from users, consistent with a site operated from a non-English locale using cloaked infrastructure. (location: page-hidden.txt:19 / page.html:523 — HTML comment with Cyrillic text)

medium

social engineering

The site presents itself as a legitimate, free MP3 download service (mp3.cc brand) while actually operating from the hydr0.org domain infrastructure. The footer contact email hydrofm@yandex.com and .yandex.com domain suggest the operator is based in Russia. The combination of a Russian email, Cyrillic developer comments, and impersonation of a Western music service creates a deceptive social engineering surface for users who believe they are interacting with the real mp3.cc site. (location: page.html:481 — footer copyright div with hydrofm@yandex.com)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ashibah-hippocoon-junkyards.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is ashibah-hippocoon-junkyards.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

ashibah-hippocoon-junkyards.hydr0.org currently scores 40/100 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 25, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

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.