context safety score
A score of 37/100 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
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
prompt injection
Hidden HTML element contains AI-targeting instructions
obfuscated code
Script tagged 'mng_admiral_script' uses double-nested decodeURI() encoding to hide variable names ('admiral', 'googletag') and an opaque targeting key, then dynamically injects an external JavaScript file from thebestpaints.com — a domain wholly unrelated to Boston Herald. This obfuscation pattern is used to evade static analysis of the script's true behavior and origin. (location: page.html, line 17: <script id="mng_admiral_script"> — decodeURI(decodeURI('%61%25%364%6d%25%369%25%372%61%256%63')))
malicious redirect
A dynamically injected script is loaded from https://thebestpaints.com/scripts/q406ugfd_egfr.vendor.js — an external domain with no apparent relationship to Boston Herald or its known ad/tech vendors (MNG, DFM, HTL, Sophi, Osano, Parsely, etc.). Injecting executable JavaScript from a third-party domain with an obfuscated random-looking filename is a strong indicator of a supply-chain compromise or malicious ad injection capable of redirecting users or exfiltrating data. (location: page.html, line 17: A.src="https://thebestpaints.com/scripts/q406ugfd_egfr.vendor.js")
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bostonherald.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
bostonherald.com currently scores 37/100 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.