Is blogspot.ch safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
55
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

brand impersonation

The page at blogspot.ch renders a full Google CAPTCHA/unusual-traffic page, including Google branding, Google reCAPTCHA enterprise widget, and Google Terms of Service links. The domain blogspot.ch is not owned by Google; it impersonates Google's automated traffic detection page to appear as a legitimate Google property. (location: page.html:3-34, <title>https://www.google.com/</title> and overall page content)

high

malicious redirect

The CAPTCHA form posts to 'index' (relative) and contains a hidden 'continue' field set to 'https://www.google.com/'. After form submission, the user is redirected to Google, masking the intermediate data collection step on the non-Google domain blogspot.ch. (location: page.html:17, <input type="hidden" name="continue" value="https://www.google.com/">)

high

phishing

The non-Google domain blogspot.ch serves a page that visually and functionally mimics a Google security checkpoint (unusual traffic / CAPTCHA page), including a real reCAPTCHA widget with a Google sitekey. This is a classic phishing lure designed to make users believe they are interacting with Google infrastructure while on a third-party domain. (location: page.html:1-35)

medium

hidden content

A hidden input field named 'q' contains a long opaque encoded value ('EhAmABkAAAAtBwAA...'), and an 'infoDiv' element is hidden by default (display:none). The hidden 'q' parameter is submitted with the CAPTCHA form and may carry tracking, fingerprinting, or session-hijacking data. (location: page.html:17, <input type='hidden' name='q' value='EhAmABkAAAAtBwAAAAAAADgBGPO...'> and page.html:26, <div id="infoDiv" style="display:none">)

medium

social engineering

The page uses authoritative Google-styled language ('Our systems have detected unusual traffic', 'in violation of the Terms of Service') to pressure users into submitting the CAPTCHA form, exploiting fear of being blocked from Google services to drive interaction with the attacker-controlled domain. (location: page-text.txt:21-24, visible body text)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/blogspot.ch

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is blogspot.ch safe for AI agents to use?

blogspot.ch currently scores 40/100 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.