context safety score
A score of 56/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
phishing
2 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
brand impersonation
Page is served from blank-jones-with-deep-forest.hydr0.org but clones the MP3.cc brand entirely: uses MP3.cc logo, CSS/JS assets loaded directly from mp3.cc CDN, canonical URL points to mp3.cc, and all navigation links resolve to mp3.cc. This is an unauthorized mirror that impersonates the legitimate MP3.cc service. (location: page.html: <title>, <link rel='canonical'>, all href/src attributes referencing https://mp3.cc)
malicious redirect
All media file playback URLs route through a third-party proxy domain fine.sunproxy.net using opaque base64-encoded tokens. This intermediary intercepts all audio file requests, allowing the operator to redirect downloads to arbitrary content, substitute files, or track user behavior without the user's knowledge. The base64 tokens are encrypted/binary and not human-readable. (location: page.html lines 228, 247, 266, 285, 304, 323, 342, 361, 380, 399, 418, 437, 456, 475, 494, 513, 532, 551, 570, 589 — data-url attributes pointing to https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/*)
malicious redirect
Social share buttons (Facebook, VK, Twitter) use window.open() onclick handlers that share the canonical mp3.cc URL rather than the current page URL (blank-jones-with-deep-forest.hydr0.org). This mismatch between page origin and shared URL is consistent with a cloned site obscuring its true identity. (location: page.html lines 623-626 — rt_share onclick handlers sharing https://mp3.cc/)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/blank-jones-with-deep-forest.hydr0.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
blank-jones-with-deep-forest.hydr0.org currently scores 56/100 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.
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.