Is b-o-b-airplanes-feat-hayley-williams-of-paramore.hydr0.org safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
47/100

context safety score

A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
82
behavior
60
content
24
graph
72

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

The page is hosted on hydr0.org but fully impersonates MP3.cc: the HTML title reads 'MP3.cc', the header logo is labeled 'MP3.cc', the footer copyright states '© 2017–2026 MP3.cc', and the canonical tag points to mp3.cc/t/... — all while the actual serving domain is b-o-b-airplanes-feat-hayley-williams-of-paramore.hydr0.org. This is a deliberate clone/mirror designed to pass as the legitimate MP3.cc service. (location: page.html: <title> (line 5), <a id='he-logo'> (line 33), <div id='foo-copyright'> (line 652), <link rel='canonical'> (line 9))

medium

malicious redirect

The page uses a canonical meta tag pointing to mp3.cc (a different domain) while being served from hydr0.org. Combined with the confirmed redirect signal in .brin-context.md (Redirects: 1), this indicates SEO-cloaking redirect manipulation — the site diverts search-engine authority to the impersonated domain while serving users from the fraudulent domain. (location: page.html line 9: <link rel='canonical' href='https://mp3.cc/t/3866478227-b-o-b-airplanes-feat-hayley-williams-of-paramore/'>)

low

social engineering

A link to looz.net (an unrelated external site) is embedded inside the genre navigation sidebar using class 'z__important', styled identically to legitimate genre links (Pop, Dance, Rap, etc.) and labeled 'Online Radio'. This deceptively presents an off-domain destination as a native site feature, consistent with the 'Deceptive link count: 1' flagged in Tier 2 pre-scan. (location: page.html line 204: <a href='https://looz.net/' class='z__important no-ajax' target='_blank'>Online Radio</a>)

low

hidden content

All 22 audio file playback URLs are obfuscated as base64-encoded tokens routed through fine.sunproxy.net (e.g., 'https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/NDgwd...'). The decoded token values are binary-encrypted blobs, not plain URLs, preventing inspection of actual file sources or tracking endpoints. This matches the 12 'suspicious base64 blobs' flagged in Tier 2. (location: page.html lines 228, 247, 266, 285, 304, 323, 342, 361, 380, 399, 418, 437, 456, 475, 494, 513, 532, 551, 570, 589, 608, 627: data-url attributes on playlist-play anchors)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/b-o-b-airplanes-feat-hayley-williams-of-paramore.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is b-o-b-airplanes-feat-hayley-williams-of-paramore.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

b-o-b-airplanes-feat-hayley-williams-of-paramore.hydr0.org currently scores 47/100 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 25, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.