context safety score
A score of 79/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
obfuscated code
Heavy JavaScript obfuscation present in inline script: shuffled string-array lookup table, hexadecimal integer encoding, self-defending anti-debug console-override loop, and a custom SHA-256 implementation (function bbc6cf0). The obfuscation pattern is consistent with tools such as javascript-obfuscator and is used to hide the true logic of a bot-challenge or fingerprinting script loaded from /hcdn-cgi/jschallenge. (location: page.html – inline <script> block following <script src='/hcdn-cgi/jschallenge'>)
malicious redirect
After solving the obfuscated JS challenge (POSTing a computed hash to jsChallengeUrl), the script calls window.location.replace(uri) on HTTP 200. The destination URI is resolved at runtime from obfuscated variables; the true redirect target cannot be determined statically, making it impossible to verify it is benign. The page also uses <meta http-equiv='refresh' content='30'> as a secondary redirect mechanism. (location: page.html – async IIFE at end of inline script: xhr.onload handler calling window[...]['replace'](uri))
social engineering
The visible page presents a fake 'browser verification / Cloudflare-style' interstitial ('Checking your browser before accessing. Just a moment...') to create a sense of legitimacy and induce users to wait while background JavaScript executes. The page also carries <meta name='robots' content='noindex,nofollow'> to suppress search-engine indexing, a common tactic for pages that should not be discoverable by crawlers. (location: page.html – <title> and <h1> elements; <meta name='robots'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/autobest.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
autobest.org currently scores 79/100 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.