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
phishing
Domain bidnest.cc uses a .cc TLD (Cocos Islands) commonly abused for phishing and scam infrastructure. The domain age is unknown and WHOIS privacy is redacted, both strong indicators of a newly registered or privacy-shielded phishing domain. (location: metadata.json: domain=bidnest.cc)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). The site either does not serve HTTPS properly or is a parked/redirector domain. Pages returning no content combined with a failed TLS handshake suggest the domain may be used as a redirect hop or is in a setup/staging phase for a malicious campaign. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
brand impersonation
The domain name 'bidnest.cc' mimics legitimate auction or marketplace brands (e.g., BidSpotter, BidNow, or similar bidding platforms). The .cc TLD is a common technique to register lookalike domains that impersonate well-known bidding/auction services to harvest credentials or payment information. (location: metadata.json: domain=bidnest.cc)
credential harvesting
The combination of a lookalike bidding/auction domain name, unknown domain age, redacted WHOIS, and failed TLS strongly matches the profile of a credential harvesting site targeting users of legitimate auction platforms. No page content was retrievable, consistent with a site that is either gated behind a login wall or selectively serves content to avoid automated scanners. (location: metadata.json: domain=bidnest.cc, tls block)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bidnest.ccCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
bidnest.cc 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.