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 'azure-dns-2.cn' impersonates Microsoft Azure by incorporating 'azure' in the hostname, combined with a .cn TLD. This pattern is consistent with typosquatting/brand abuse targeting users who associate 'azure' with Microsoft Azure cloud services. (location: domain: azure-dns-2.cn)
phishing
The domain mimics a Microsoft Azure DNS service ('azure-dns-2.cn') while using a .cn TLD and having no valid TLS certificate (TLS connected=false, cert_valid=false). This combination — a trusted brand name, numeric suffix, foreign TLD, and no valid HTTPS — is a strong phishing indicator. (location: domain: azure-dns-2.cn, metadata.json tls block)
malicious redirect
The site returned empty page content (page.html and page-text.txt are blank) despite the domain being reachable enough to have metadata collected. Empty pages on suspicious brand-impersonating domains are commonly used as redirect stagers or cloaked landing pages that serve different content to targeted victims. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
hidden content
TLS connection failed (connected=false) and no page content was rendered, yet the domain resolves and metadata was collected. The absence of visible or hidden content may indicate server-side cloaking — serving benign or empty responses to scanners while delivering malicious content to real users or specific geolocations. (location: metadata.json tls.connected=false, page-hidden.txt (empty), page.html (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/azure-dns-2.cnCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
azure-dns-2.cn 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.