context safety score
A score of 48/100 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 'awsdns-26.org' mimics Amazon Web Services DNS infrastructure (awsdns is an AWS Route 53 nameserver brand). The .org TLD combined with a numeric suffix is a common typosquatting/impersonation pattern targeting AWS users and automated systems that may trust awsdns-branded domains. (location: metadata.json: domain field, .brin-context.md: URL)
phishing
The domain awsdns-26.org impersonates AWS Route 53 DNS infrastructure naming conventions. TLS is not connected and cert is invalid, which is atypical for a legitimate AWS service. The site may be used to deceive users or agents into believing they are interacting with an AWS service endpoint. (location: metadata.json: tls object (connected=false, cert_valid=false))
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false) with no valid certificate, yet the URL is HTTPS. This may indicate the site redirects or drops connections in ways that could be used to intercept or manipulate traffic, or the page content is served conditionally to evade scanners. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
hidden content
The page HTML and visible text are completely empty despite the domain being reachable enough to be scanned. Empty page content with a deceptive AWS-branded domain suggests content may be served conditionally (e.g., only to targeted user agents, IPs, or referrers) to evade automated analysis while delivering malicious content to real victims. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/awsdns-26.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
awsdns-26.org currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious 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.