Is autel.com 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
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

critical

malicious redirect

A dynamically injected script loads from 'https://g10696554090.co/gr?id=-MoJcj6OA5cttsHQvrdA&refurl='+document.referrer+'&winurl='+encodeURIComponent(window.location)' — the domain 'g10696554090.co' is not affiliated with autel.com and follows a pattern of randomly-generated numeric subdomain used by malvertising/tracking injection campaigns. It exfiltrates the referrer URL and current window location to a third-party unknown domain on every page load. (location: page.html:52-56 (<head> script block))

high

hidden content

A second geo-targeting script dynamically injects content from 'https://g1584674684.co/gc?...' — another suspicious numeric .co domain that receives the user's full window URL, referrer, and browser language. It is wrapped in obfuscated IIFE syntax and labeled internally as '<!--Hide Shop Button From North American Users-->' suggesting it conditionally alters visible page content based on geolocation data sent to an external party. (location: page.html:1829-1836 (bottom of body))

high

obfuscated code

Both third-party scripts (g10696554090.co and g1584674684.co) use obfuscated IIFE patterns with meaningless parameter names (g,e,o,t,a,r,ge,tl,y,s) to disguise their behavior. They dynamically create and inject script tags, pass sensitive page context (referrer, current URL, navigator language) to unknown external domains, and use .co TLDs with numeric subdomains — a known pattern for malicious or rogue analytics injection. (location: page.html:52-56 and page.html:1829-1836)

medium

hidden content

CSS rule '[title="站长统计"] {display: none;}' hides an element labeled '站长统计' (Chinese: 'webmaster statistics'), suggesting a hidden third-party tracking pixel or counter widget is embedded on the page and actively concealed from visitors. (location: page.html:49 (<style> block in <head>))

medium

hidden content

A <div class='hide'> wrapping a script tag loading '/r/cms/www/default/js/front.js' is present at the bottom of the footer. While the script itself may be benign, placing a script load inside a visually-hidden div is an atypical pattern that warrants scrutiny for stealthy JS execution. (location: page.html:1765-1769)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/autel.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is autel.com safe for AI agents to use?

autel.com 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 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.