Is avito.st safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
38/100

context safety score

A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
95
behavior
60
content
7
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

exfiltration

JavaScript intercepts form submissions to exfiltrate data

high

brand impersonation

The domain avito.st impersonates Avito (avito.ru), a major Russian classifieds platform. The page uses Avito branding, references avito.ru support URLs, loads scripts from www.avito.st, and uses Avito-named captcha constants (AVITO_CAPTCHA, window.avitoCaptcha). The .st TLD is not the legitimate Avito domain (.ru), indicating a typosquat or brand-impersonating clone. (location: page.html:7, page.html:294, page.html:601, metadata.json:domain)

medium

hidden content

Multiple captcha form sections are hidden via inline style='display: none' and only revealed dynamically via JavaScript based on server-determined captcha type. This includes the hCaptcha div (#h-captcha), the inner image captcha fieldset (#inner-captcha), and the GeeTest captcha div (#geetest_captcha). The actual captcha shown is controlled entirely by a server response, allowing server-side switching of challenges invisibly. (location: page.html:248, page.html:265-266, page.html:289)

medium

hidden content

A canvas element with class 'invisible-cube' is hidden via CSS (display:none; opacity:0) and used to run a WebGL fingerprinting routine that measures GPU/CPU communication latency over 50 animation frames. The result is stored in a hidden DOM element (#cubeResult) and sent as an HTTP header 'X-Cube' in the captcha verification request. This constitutes covert device fingerprinting hidden from the user. (location: page.html:195-199, page.html:311, page.html:501-521, page.html:753-758)

medium

social engineering

The page presents a fake 'IP access restriction' firewall page (in Russian: 'Доступ ограничен: проблема с IP') designed to pressure users into solving a CAPTCHA to 'return to the site'. The page instructs users to disable VPN, restart their router, and run antivirus scans — social engineering tactics to manipulate user behavior under the guise of a legitimate security check. (location: page.html:246, page.html:301-308, page-text.txt:52-59)

medium

malicious redirect

After captcha verification, the page executes window.location = location.href, triggering a redirect to the current URL. While appearing benign, this pattern on an impersonating domain is used to cycle through gate logic, potentially redirecting to a different destination once server-side conditions are met (e.g., after fingerprint collection is complete). (location: page.html:629)

low

hidden content

A third-party jQuery library is loaded from apps.bdimg.com (Baidu CDN) within a hidden GeeTest captcha div. This is an untrusted external CDN loading a legacy jQuery 1.9.1 that could be used for further data exfiltration or manipulation. The script is inside a display:none container and not visible to users. (location: page.html:293)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/avito.st

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is avito.st safe for AI agents to use?

avito.st currently scores 38/100 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.