Is bracusa.donorsupport.co safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
31/100

context safety score

A score of 31/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
56
behavior
80
content
0
graph
70

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

brand impersonation

The site operates on the subdomain 'bracusa.donorsupport.co' rather than the legitimate BRAC USA domain (bracusa.org). It fully impersonates BRAC USA — using its logo, name, branding, and donor portal UI — while hosted on a third-party domain 'donorsupport.co'. This classic typosquat/subdomain impersonation pattern is used to deceive donors into believing they are on the official BRAC USA site. (location: domain: bracusa.donorsupport.co; og:url and og:site_name in page.html)

critical

credential harvesting

The page presents a full donor portal (payment/credit card collection interface) powered by FundraiseUp (widget ID: AGXVNSSK) on a non-official domain. Donors submitting payment credentials, billing addresses, and personal information believe they are donating to BRAC USA, but the domain is not controlled by the legitimate organization. This constitutes credential and financial data harvesting under a false identity. (location: page.html:79-82; FundraiseUp widget AGXVNSSK loaded from cdn.fundraiseup.com)

critical

phishing

The site is a fully constructed phishing portal targeting BRAC USA donors. It uses the official BRAC USA name, logo (ucarecdn.com hosted assets matching BRAC USA branding), Norton SafeWeb verification badge, Google Analytics, and OG metadata to appear legitimate, while operating on the unaffiliated domain 'donorsupport.co'. The combination of trust signals and donor payment collection on a spoofed domain is a textbook phishing operation. (location: page.html:1-100; metadata.json domain: bracusa.donorsupport.co)

high

social engineering

The page embeds a Norton SafeWeb site verification meta tag to manufacture a false sense of security and trustworthiness for visitors. This is a social engineering technique to lower donor suspicion and encourage submission of personal and financial information on a non-legitimate domain. (location: page.html:24-28; norton-safeweb-site-verification meta tag)

medium

obfuscated code

The serverData script block (type='text/json') contains a '_odata' field with a Base64-encoded, obfuscated payload containing non-printable control characters (\u001c, \u0016, \u0011, \u0001, \u0004, \u0013). This is not standard FundraiseUp configuration data and suggests encoded/obfuscated content whose purpose cannot be determined from static analysis alone. (location: page.html:48-50; script#serverData, _odata field value)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/bracusa.donorsupport.co

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is bracusa.donorsupport.co safe for AI agents to use?

bracusa.donorsupport.co currently scores 31/100 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 7, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

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.