Is battle-music.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
58/100

context safety score

A score of 58/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
90
behavior
60
content
41
graph
70

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

medium

brand impersonation

The page is served from battle-music.hydr0.org but presents entirely as MP3.cc, with all canonical URLs, CSS/JS assets, Open Graph metadata, copyright, and branding pointing to mp3.cc. The serving domain (hydr0.org) operates as an unofficial mirror/alias, impersonating the MP3.cc brand without being the authoritative domain. (location: page.html: <title>, <link rel='canonical'>, <meta property='og:site_name'>, <link rel='stylesheet'>, footer copyright — all referencing mp3.cc while served from battle-music.hydr0.org)

medium

malicious redirect

The site registers 1 redirect per pre-scan metadata. The canonical link points to https://mp3.cc/t/3335237821-battle-music/ while content is served from battle-music.hydr0.org, indicating a redirect chain that routes users through a third-party domain before delivering MP3.cc content. Audio files are further proxied through fine.sunproxy.net, adding an additional undisclosed intermediary. (location: page.html line 9: <link rel='canonical' href='https://mp3.cc/t/3335237821-battle-music/'> and all data-url attributes referencing https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/)

low

hidden content

All audio file tokens in data-url attributes are base64-encoded paths routed through fine.sunproxy.net proxy. Twelve suspicious base64 blobs were flagged by the pre-scanner. These encode opaque file access tokens that obscure the true file origin, prevent direct URL verification, and could facilitate content substitution or user tracking without disclosure. (location: page.html lines 228, 247, 266, 285, 304, 323, 342, 361, 380, 399, 418, 437 (and more) — data-url attributes on playlist-play anchors)

low

social engineering

An 'Online Radio' link to https://looz.net/ is embedded in the genre navigation sidebar with class 'z__important' and target='_blank', styled identically to legitimate internal genre links (Pop, Dance, Rap, etc.). This deceptive presentation encourages users to navigate to an unrelated external site under the false impression it is part of the MP3.cc site navigation. (location: page.html line 204: <a href='https://looz.net/' class='z__important no-ajax' target='_blank'>Online Radio</a>)

low

hidden content

High user-agent differential ratio of 0.72 indicates significant content cloaking — the page serves substantially different content to automated crawlers versus regular browsers. This is a common technique to hide content from security scanners while presenting it to human users. (location: .brin-context.md: User-agent diff ratio: 0.72)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/battle-music.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is battle-music.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

battle-music.hydr0.org currently scores 58/100 with a caution 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.