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
The domain 'awsdns-46.net' closely mimics Amazon Web Services (AWS) DNS infrastructure naming conventions (e.g., awsdns-XX.net is the pattern used by Route 53 resolvers). This typosquatting/impersonation pattern is designed to deceive users or automated systems into trusting it as a legitimate AWS asset. (location: domain: awsdns-46.net)
phishing
The domain impersonates AWS DNS infrastructure. Combined with a failed TLS connection (connected=false, cert_valid=false), the site may be in a staging or evasion posture. Infrastructure-impersonating domains are commonly used to intercept credentials or redirect traffic from misconfigured clients expecting legitimate AWS DNS endpoints. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
malicious redirect
The domain resolves but returns no page content (empty page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt). This blank-page behavior is consistent with a parked or redirect-only domain used to silently forward traffic to a malicious destination, or to serve content only to targeted IPs/user-agents while evading crawlers. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
hidden content
All content files (page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt) are empty despite the domain being active. This may indicate cloaking — serving different content to real users vs. scanners/bots — a common evasion technique used in phishing and malware distribution campaigns. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/awsdns-46.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
awsdns-46.net 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.