Is bailon.muzce.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
33/100

context safety score

A score of 33/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
60
content
14
graph
73

7 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

malicious redirect

The page is served from subdomain bailon.muzce.com but canonical URL, all content links, and MP3 file URLs point to muzce.com. This subdomain functions as a redirect/mirror layer that obscures the true content origin, consistent with the single redirect flagged in Tier 2 analysis. (location: page.html line 10: <link rel="canonical" href="https://muzce.com/"> and throughout all href/data-track attributes)

medium

hidden content

LiveInternet analytics counter uses a 1x1 transparent GIF encoded as a data URI () as a placeholder, then replaces its src via JavaScript to send the visitor's full URL, referrer, screen resolution, and color depth to counter.yadro.ru. This is one of the two suspicious base64 blobs flagged by Tier 2. While LiveInternet is a known Russian analytics provider, the technique collects and exfiltrates detailed browser fingerprint data without user disclosure. (location: page.html lines 669-678)

low

hidden content

A second base64 blob is present in the same LiveInternet counter img src attribute (data:image/gif;base64,...). Both base64 blobs correspond to the 2 suspicious base64 blobs noted in Tier 2 pre-scan; both resolve to the same tracking pixel pattern rather than injected payloads. (location: page.html line 670)

medium

malicious redirect

Third-party script loaded from ru.viadata.store (https://ru.viadata.store/v2/comm_min.js?sid=109170) with async execution. viadata.store is not a well-known CDN or analytics provider; loading an opaque external script from an obscure .store TLD with a session ID parameter poses a supply-chain/drive-by risk and corresponds to the deceptive link count of 1 flagged in Tier 2. (location: page.html line 731)

low

hidden content

The dle_login_hash JavaScript variable ('02c6fcd68825d03262fa98370a7d44cbd47e1a90') is exposed in a public inline script block visible to all visitors. This hash is part of the DataLife Engine CMS session/auth system and leaking it publicly could assist session fixation or CSRF attacks against authenticated users. (location: page.html line 697 / page-text.txt line 637)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bailon.muzce.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is bailon.muzce.com safe for AI agents to use?

bailon.muzce.com currently scores 33/100 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.

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

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.