Is bisp.gov.pk safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
44/100

context safety score

A score of 44/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
11
graph
30

8 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

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

medium

hidden content

A hidden 1x1 pixel iframe is injected at the bottom of the page by Cloudflare's rocket-loader script. The iframe has visibility:hidden, height=1, width=1, position:absolute, and dynamically injects a script referencing '/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js' with an encoded parameter (t='MTc3MjYyOTA5Mg=='). While consistent with Cloudflare bot-challenge infrastructure, this pattern of a hidden iframe injecting obfuscated script is a recognized technique used in malicious contexts and warrants disclosure. (location: page.html:1540 (inline script at bottom of body))

medium

obfuscated code

All script tags on the page use a non-standard type attribute value '95adfdbf8f055002c3e4629c-text/javascript' instead of 'text/javascript'. This is a Cloudflare Rocket Loader mechanism that defers script execution by changing the MIME type so browsers do not execute scripts natively. While a known CDN technique, this pattern of replacing script types with opaque tokens to alter execution flow is functionally equivalent to script obfuscation and could mask malicious script behavior if content were tampered with. (location: page.html:49-53, 1505-1524 (all script tags site-wide))

low

hidden content

The Cloudflare inline script at the bottom of the body creates a hidden iframe and then injects another script element inside the iframe's document with encoded parameters (r:'9d710d16ab400cda', t:'MTc3MjYyOTA5Mg=='). The base64 value 'MTc3MjYyOTA5Mg==' decodes to '1772629092', consistent with a timestamp. This is standard Cloudflare challenge infrastructure, but the dynamic script injection via hidden iframe with encoded parameters represents a hidden content/obfuscated execution pattern. (location: page.html:1540, page-text.txt:1218)

low

social engineering

The site prominently displays a government helpline number '0800-26477' and contact forms collecting name, email, subject, and message fields. The site serves a vulnerable population (low-income welfare beneficiaries). While the domain is the legitimate bisp.gov.pk, the collection of personal contact information from vulnerable users via a public contact form without visible privacy disclosures or data handling notice could be exploited if this site were cloned or if the form endpoint were compromised. (location: page.html:1452-1481 (footer contact form), page.html:270 (helpline))

low

malicious redirect

The Twitter social link in the header uses a malformed URL 'twitter.com/bisp_pakistan' (missing the https:// scheme prefix) rather than a properly absolute URL. This could cause unexpected navigation behavior in some contexts, potentially resolving relative to the current page path rather than as an external link. (location: page.html:252, page.html:401)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bisp.gov.pk

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is bisp.gov.pk safe for AI agents to use?

bisp.gov.pk 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.

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 4, 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.