Is attachmail.ru safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
34/100

context safety score

A score of 34/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
95
behavior
20
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

medium

cloaking

Page uses meta refresh redirect

high

malicious redirect

The page at attachmail.ru immediately redirects visitors to mail.ru via both a meta http-equiv refresh tag and a JavaScript window.location.href assignment. The domain 'attachmail.ru' impersonates a mail attachment or mail service, then silently forwards users to mail.ru. This technique is commonly used to obscure the true landing destination, evade blocklists, and facilitate phishing or credential harvesting by interposing a redirect layer. (location: page.html:12-14)

high

brand impersonation

The domain 'attachmail.ru' mimics legitimate mail/attachment services and appears closely associated with mail.ru branding (using assets from imgsmail.ru and redirecting to mail.ru). The favicon is loaded from 'imgs2.imgsmail.ru/static/logo/rebranding/logo_favicon.png', borrowing mail.ru visual identity on a third-party domain not owned or operated as an official mail.ru property. This creates a false impression of affiliation with the Mail.ru brand. (location: page.html:6, metadata.json:domain)

high

phishing

The combination of a domain name (attachmail.ru) that implies email attachment functionality, use of mail.ru branding assets, and an immediate transparent redirect to mail.ru/?autologin=no is consistent with a phishing or credential-harvesting relay. The 'autologin=no' parameter forces users to re-enter credentials even if they have an active session, maximizing the opportunity to capture login events or intercept authentication flows. (location: page.html:12-14)

medium

hidden content

A tracking beacon is silently fired via JavaScript before any visible content is rendered: '(new Image).src = "//stat.radar.imgsmail.ru/update?p=login&t=meta-redirect&v=1&i=ae:1,ec:11300,ae_p-home_exp-v22:1"'. This pixel-style tracker records visit metadata (page=login, type=meta-redirect) to a third-party analytics endpoint, with no user disclosure. The 'p=login' parameter indicates the tracker is specifically logging login-page visits, which is anomalous for a page with no visible content. (location: page.html:9)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/attachmail.ru

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is attachmail.ru safe for AI agents to use?

attachmail.ru currently scores 34/100 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.