context safety score
A score of 48/100 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
hidden content
A meta tag named 'BridPlugin' in the page head contains an OAuth token encoded in binary/ASCII space-separated bytes: 'oauth_token:01110011 01100101 01100011 01110010 01100101 01110100' which decodes to the string 'secret'. This embeds a credential-like value in a non-standard meta attribute that is invisible to users but readable by scripts and crawlers. While this appears to be a plugin configuration token for the Brid.tv WordPress plugin (site ID 17402), embedding authentication tokens in page HTML is a security risk as it exposes the token to any party that can read the page source. (location: page.html:153 - <meta name='BridPlugin' content='site:17402|oauth_token:01110011 01100101 01100011 01110010 01100101 01110100|ver:3.6.5|...'>)
hidden content
The visited URL is https://brid.tv (domain: brid.tv) but the page served is the TargetVideo homepage (target-video.com). The HTML canonical URL, og:url, all internal links, and the page title all reference target-video.com, not brid.tv. This indicates brid.tv redirects or serves content for target-video.com. While brid.tv appears to be a related/predecessor brand owned by the same company (TargetVideo GmbH), an agent visiting brid.tv and receiving target-video.com content with no visible disclosure of the domain relationship could be confused about the true identity of the site being analyzed. (location: page.html:14 - <link rel='canonical' href='https://target-video.com/'> vs scanned URL https://brid.tv)
hidden content
Multiple bot/crawler detection scripts are present that conditionally load CSS resources only when the visitor is NOT a recognized bot (Googlebot, Chrome-Lighthouse, GTmetrix, HeadlessChrome, Pingdom). This differential content delivery could serve different assets to AI agents and crawlers versus human users, though in this case it appears to be a performance optimization (WP Optimize minify plugin) rather than malicious cloaking. (location: page.html:34-53 - repeated wpo_server_info_css blocks with navigator.userAgent bot-detection checks)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/brid.tvCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
brid.tv currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.