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
brand impersonation
The domain 'bitrix24.tech' closely mimics the legitimate 'bitrix24.com' brand (a well-known CRM/collaboration platform by 1C-Bitrix). Use of an alternative TLD (.tech instead of .com) is a classic typosquatting/brand impersonation technique to deceive users and agents into trusting the site as the official Bitrix24 service. (location: domain: bitrix24.tech)
phishing
The domain impersonates Bitrix24 (bitrix24.com) using a deceptive alternative TLD (.tech). Combined with a failed TLS connection (connected=false, cert_valid=false), this is consistent with a phishing infrastructure setup — potentially used to harvest credentials from users who believe they are accessing the legitimate Bitrix24 platform. (location: domain: bitrix24.tech, TLS metadata)
credential harvesting
The combination of brand impersonation of a business productivity/CRM platform (Bitrix24) and invalid/absent TLS certificate strongly suggests credential harvesting intent. Users or automated agents directed here may submit login credentials believing it is the legitimate Bitrix24 service. (location: domain: bitrix24.tech, TLS metadata)
hidden content
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false), meaning page content could not be retrieved. Empty page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt indicate the site either actively blocks crawlers/scanners or serves content only under specific conditions (e.g., referrer, user-agent, geolocation), which is a common evasion technique used by phishing and malware sites. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt, TLS metadata)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bitrix24.techCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
bitrix24.tech 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.