context safety score
A score of 43/100 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
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
obfuscated code
AdRoll tracking script constructs the script host URL using punycode/XN-- encoded domains: 'https://s.adroll.xn--com-9o0a/' and 'http://a.adroll.xn--com)%3B-nc0e/' — these are not legitimate AdRoll domains. The real AdRoll domain is adroll.com. XN-- encoding is being used to obfuscate a non-standard or potentially malicious domain in place of the expected tracking endpoint. (location: page.html:202, page.html:241)
malicious redirect
AdRoll script dynamically constructs and injects a script tag loading '/j/roundtrip.js' from an XN--punycode-encoded domain ('adroll.xn--com-9o0a') rather than the legitimate 'adroll.com'. This pattern is consistent with supply-chain hijacking or domain substitution to redirect script loading to an attacker-controlled host. (location: page.html:197-208, page.html:236-248)
obfuscated code
A script is loaded from 'https://secure.neck6bake.com/js/200111.js' — an unrecognized, low-reputation domain with no clear affiliation to any known analytics or advertising vendor. The domain name ('neck6bake') is nonsensical and matches patterns used in malvertising or data exfiltration scripts. (location: page.html:250)
hidden content
Multiple hidden 1x1 pixel tracking iframes and images are embedded with display:none and zero dimensions, including GTM noscript iframes (GTM-MXDF3C5, GTM-52NFRWJ), Facebook pixel noscript img, and LinkedIn insight pixel. While some are standard ad-tech, the presence of two separate GTM container IDs (GTM-MXDF3C5 and GTM-52NFRWJ) is anomalous and could indicate a compromised or shadow tag manager container. (location: page.html:275, page-text.txt:2, page-text.txt:84)
obfuscated code
Script loaded from 'http://classic.avantlink.com/affiliate_app_confirm.php?mode=js&authResponse=4feafe679b92f6ea22786a865954aefdb55da5ca' over plain HTTP (not HTTPS), embedding a dynamic script response from an affiliate network endpoint. Loading executable JavaScript over HTTP allows for man-in-the-middle injection. (location: page.html:281)
obfuscated code
A Contact Form 7 event listener uses eval() to execute arbitrary JavaScript received in AJAX API responses: 'eval(event.detail.apiResponse.fb_pxl_code)'. This pattern allows server-side or intercepted API responses to inject and execute arbitrary code in the browser, and is a known XSS/code-injection vector. (location: page.html:291-293, page-text.txt:17-20)
hidden content
Script loaded from 'https://d3uz7fhqos37j7.cloudfront.net/cf67355a3333e6e143439161adc2d82e.js' — an opaque CloudFront URL with no clear vendor attribution. The hash-only filename provides no indication of purpose and obscures the script's origin or function. (location: page.html:262)
hidden content
Script loaded from 'https://r2.leadsy.ai/tag.js' via vtag-ai-js, a visitor identification/deanonymization service. Combined with reb2b.js (B2B visitor identification) also loaded on the page, the site deploys multiple identity resolution trackers that silently profile visitors without explicit disclosure in visible page content. (location: page.html:274)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/brandlock.ioCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
brandlock.io currently scores 43/100 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.