Is asupanbrocill.space 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

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

critical

brand impersonation

The page hosted on asupanbrocill.space (an unrelated third-party domain) renders a near-perfect clone of Google's automated traffic/CAPTCHA interstitial, including Google branding, Google's reCAPTCHA enterprise widget, links to google.com policies, and language copied verbatim from genuine Google error pages. The page title is literally 'https://www.google.com/' to further deceive users and agents. (location: page.html:3-33, title tag and full body content)

critical

phishing

The domain asupanbrocill.space is impersonating a Google CAPTCHA page and submitting form data via POST to 'index' with hidden fields including an encoded 'q' parameter and a 'continue' value pointing to https://www.google.com/. This is a classic phishing flow: lure the victim through a fake CAPTCHA, capture form submission data, then redirect to the legitimate Google site to avoid suspicion. (location: page.html:7,17 — form action='index', hidden inputs 'q' and 'continue')

high

malicious redirect

The hidden form field 'continue' is set to 'https://www.google.com/', which will redirect the user to Google after form submission. This is a standard post-phishing redirect technique used to mask the attack by making the victim land on a legitimate page, reducing the chance they realize they were phished. (location: page.html:17 — <input type='hidden' name='continue' value='https://www.google.com/'>)

high

social engineering

The page uses authoritative, fear-inducing language ('Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network') copied from Google's real interstitial to pressure users into submitting the CAPTCHA form without scrutiny. This social engineering technique exploits trust in Google's brand and urgency to bypass the user's critical thinking. (location: page-text.txt:21-24, page.html:24-27)

medium

hidden content

The form contains a hidden input field 'q' with a long opaque encoded/encrypted value ('EhAmABkAAAAtBQAAAAAAADgBGL-xoc0GIilf_ywKPfo168akdVlFCaorVW-VoXDLvkxsrATTXbeV23TIiWHE3dn2LjICclJaAUM') that is submitted silently with the CAPTCHA response. The purpose and content of this token is not disclosed to the user and may encode session tracking, victim fingerprinting, or exfiltration data. (location: page.html:17 — <input type='hidden' name='q' value='EhAmAB...'>)

medium

prompt injection

The page body includes an onload handler calling 'solveSimpleChallenge(0,0)' — a function not defined in the page's own scripts. This could be an attempt to invoke an auto-solve function injected into AI agent or browser-automation environments, instructing an agent to automatically submit the CAPTCHA form without user interaction, enabling silent credential/token harvesting from automated pipelines. (location: page.html:4 — onload="...if(solveSimpleChallenge) {solveSimpleChallenge(0,0);}")

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/asupanbrocill.space

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is asupanbrocill.space safe for AI agents to use?

asupanbrocill.space 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.