context safety score
A score of 28/100 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
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
cloaking
Page checks user-agent for bot/crawler strings to serve different content
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
malicious redirect
The page is hosted on bongdalu627.com but all canonical URLs, meta tags, og:url, favicon, scripts, and internal logic redirect to bongdalu635.com. The CheckToTouchForCom() function programmatically redirects users to //www.bongdalu635.com/ based on cookie values, and a conditional redirect to /versions is also present. This indicates bongdalu627.com is a shadow/mirror domain funneling traffic to a different domain. (location: page.html:14,189,200 — canonical href, window.location.href redirects in CheckToTouchForCom())
brand impersonation
The scanned domain is bongdalu627.com, but the page fully presents itself as bongdalu635.com in its title, meta description, canonical link, og:url, twitter:url, footer branding, and all internal script variables (_mainDomain, _wsUrl, _userWebDomain). The domain bongdalu627.com is impersonating or acting as an unauthorized mirror of bongdalu635.com, a legitimate Vietnamese football scores site. (location: page.html:11-24,60,683-684 — title, meta tags, _mainDomain, _userWebDomain variables)
hidden content
The footer div is set to display:none in the HTML (id='footer', style='display:none') and is only revealed conditionally via JavaScript (_footerShow check). The noscript GTM iframe is also hidden with height=0, width=0, display:none, visibility:hidden. The div id='allCnzz' and its parent wrapper are also hidden (display:none), concealing analytics/tracking beacon code from casual inspection. (location: page.html:713,777-788 — footer div display:none, allCnzz hidden div, noscript iframe)
malicious redirect
A link in the footer points to //live.bongdalu811.com/?from=m (yet another numerically-variant domain), and the App link points to https://www.bongdpro.com/ — a different domain entirely. These cross-domain links from a mirror site to further variant domains suggest a domain rotation/redirect network commonly used for ad fraud, gambling traffic monetization, or evading blocklists. (location: page.html:729,734 — footer links to bongdalu811.com and bongdpro.com)
hidden content
The Google Tag Manager is loaded with an unusual GTM ID format (G-Y5QFL9PEH3) used as a GTM container ID rather than a GA4 measurement ID. GTM is typically identified by 'GTM-XXXXXX' format; using a GA4-style ID in GTM initialization is anomalous and may indicate the GTM snippet is being abused or is misconfigured to obscure the actual tracking/payload container. (location: page.html:97 — GTM script with id G-Y5QFL9PEH3)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bongdalu627.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
bongdalu627.com currently scores 28/100 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.