context safety score
A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
brand impersonation
The page at blogspot.jp renders a full Google CAPTCHA/unusual-traffic interstitial, including Google branding, Google reCAPTCHA enterprise widget, and messaging mimicking Google's automated-traffic block page. The page title is set to 'https://www.google.com/' and all visible text impersonates an authentic Google security page, while the actual domain is blogspot.jp (a non-Google domain). (location: page.html:3-34, <title> and visible body content)
phishing
The domain blogspot.jp hosts a page that visually and textually impersonates Google's CAPTCHA/bot-detection flow. The hidden form field 'continue' is set to 'https://www.google.com/', and the form action posts to 'index' on the same non-Google domain. This is consistent with a phishing relay that harvests CAPTCHA tokens or redirects users after a fake verification step. (location: page.html:7,17 — <form action='index'> with hidden 'continue' value)
malicious redirect
A hidden form input named 'continue' with value 'https://www.google.com/' is embedded in the POST form. After the fake CAPTCHA is solved, the form submits to the local 'index' endpoint on blogspot.jp, which likely processes the token and then redirects the user — a classic open-redirect or phishing-relay pattern used to build trust while intercepting the session. (location: page.html:17 — <input type='hidden' name='continue' value='https://www.google.com/'>)
social engineering
The page uses authoritative Google-style language ('Our systems have detected unusual traffic', 'in violation of the Terms of Service') to pressure users into completing the CAPTCHA. This urgency and authority framing is a social engineering technique to compel interaction with the malicious page. (location: page.html:24,27 — visible warning text)
hidden content
The 'infoDiv' element is hidden by default (style='display:none') and contains detailed explanatory text that is not visible on initial page load. While this mimics Google's legitimate pattern, on a spoofed page this hidden content can also serve to conceal additional instructions or payload text from automated scanners. (location: page.html:26-28 — <div id='infoDiv' style='display:none'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/blogspot.jpCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
blogspot.jp 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.
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.