context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain 'aws-thinq-prd.net' mimics Amazon Web Services (AWS) by incorporating 'aws' as a prefix. The use of a .net TLD with a fabricated subdomain-style pattern ('thinq-prd') is a classic technique to impersonate AWS infrastructure or services, deceiving users and AI agents into believing the domain is legitimate AWS property. (location: domain: aws-thinq-prd.net)
phishing
The domain pattern 'aws-thinq-prd.net' is consistent with phishing infrastructure targeting AWS customers or developers. The 'prd' suffix (suggesting 'production') combined with the AWS brand prefix is designed to appear as a legitimate AWS production endpoint, increasing the likelihood of credential submission or trust by automated agents. (location: domain: aws-thinq-prd.net)
credential harvesting
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) on a domain impersonating AWS. Sites mimicking cloud providers with broken or absent TLS are frequently used to harvest AWS credentials, API keys, or IAM tokens from users or automated systems that trust the AWS branding. (location: metadata.json: tls block)
malicious redirect
The site returns no HTML content (page.html is empty) despite being reachable enough to be scanned. This is consistent with a redirect-only or cloaked page that serves different content to targeted victims (e.g., bots, specific user-agents, or geolocated users) while appearing empty to scanners. (location: page.html (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/aws-thinq-prd.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
aws-thinq-prd.net currently scores 36/100 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.
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.