context safety score
A score of 60/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
malicious redirect
Page immediately redirects all visitors via JavaScript using window.location.replace() with browser fingerprinting (FingerprintJS) to append a visitor ID (fp=) parameter. A 300ms timeout fallback fires redirect('fp=-7') if fingerprinting fails. This pattern is characteristic of tracking/cloaking infrastructure used in affiliate fraud and malicious ad networks. (location: page.html:6-26, script block)
hidden content
A hidden anchor element with display:none contains a fallback redirect link with fp=-3, ensuring non-JS crawlers and bots still follow the redirect chain. This is used to cloak the true destination from security scanners while delivering redirect behavior to real users. (location: page.html:32, <div style='display: none;'>)
malicious redirect
A <noscript> meta-refresh redirect with 0-second delay targets the same tracking URL with fp=-5. This ensures users without JavaScript are also immediately redirected, completing a three-vector redirect system (JS/hidden-link/noscript) designed to redirect all visitor types. (location: page.html:33, <noscript> tag)
social engineering
The only visible text on the page is 'Click here to enter', a minimal social engineering prompt designed to induce clicks in the hidden link fallback. The page has no legitimate content, functioning solely as a redirect doorway page typical of casino affiliate traffic laundering schemes. (location: page-text.txt:2, page.html:32)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/atesaffilix.tlcasinopartners.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
atesaffilix.tlcasinopartners.com currently scores 60/100 with a caution 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.