context safety score
A score of 44/100 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-cn-47.biz' mimics AWS (Amazon Web Services) DNS infrastructure naming conventions. The pattern 'awsdns' is used by Amazon Route 53 resolvers (e.g., ns-*.awsdns-*.com/net/org/co.uk). Registering a lookalike under a .biz TLD with a Chinese-region suffix (-cn-) is a classic typosquatting/brand impersonation tactic targeting AWS customers and automated systems that interact with DNS infrastructure. (location: domain: awsdns-cn-47.biz)
phishing
The domain combines AWS brand impersonation with a .biz TLD and no valid TLS certificate (TLS connection failed, cert_valid=false). Legitimate AWS DNS infrastructure exclusively uses .com/.net/.org/.co.uk TLDs with valid certificates. This combination strongly indicates a phishing or credential harvesting site targeting AWS users or developers. (location: domain: awsdns-cn-47.biz, tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
A domain impersonating AWS DNS infrastructure with no resolvable/valid TLS and a .biz TLD is a common vector for harvesting AWS credentials, API keys, or account logins from developers and automated tooling that may be tricked into trusting the domain as a legitimate AWS endpoint. (location: domain: awsdns-cn-47.biz)
malicious redirect
The site returned no HTML content despite being reachable enough to record metadata. This blank/empty page behavior is consistent with a redirect-only site or a parked domain used as a hop in a redirect chain to obscure the final malicious destination from scanners. (location: page.html: empty, page-text.txt: empty)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/awsdns-cn-47.bizCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
awsdns-cn-47.biz currently scores 44/100 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.