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
brand impersonation
The page at brooklynmuseum.org renders a 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' interstitial page. The actual Brooklyn Museum website content is not served; instead, the page impersonates Vercel's bot-protection UI. This could be a misconfiguration or a spoofed checkpoint page used to intercept visitors expecting the Brooklyn Museum site. (location: page.html:<title> and page-text.txt: 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' footer/header)
obfuscated code
The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript with string array rotation, integer-based index obfuscation, and self-defending anti-tampering patterns (anti-debugger constructs via toString/search regex checks). The obfuscation technique is consistent with tools like javascript-obfuscator and is atypical for a legitimate Vercel checkpoint page, raising the possibility of injected malicious logic hidden within the obfuscated routines. (location: page.html: <script type="module"> block, lines 2)
prompt injection
The page-text.txt file contains raw HTML markup embedded within what should be visible text content. This raw HTML injection into the text extraction layer could be used to confuse or manipulate AI agents that consume the text output, potentially injecting false context or instructions into agent pipelines that process page text. (location: page-text.txt: embedded raw HTML div/main/footer markup within visible text)
social engineering
The interstitial displays 'We’re verifying your browser' and 'Enable JavaScript to continue', which are classic social engineering patterns used to coerce users into enabling JavaScript or completing actions. When served on a domain the user trusts (brooklynmuseum.org), this mismatch between expected content and displayed content can be exploited to manipulate user behavior. (location: page.html: #header-text, #header-noscript-text elements; page-text.txt line 1)
malicious redirect
The page includes a visible link to 'https://vercel.link/security-checkpoint' with rel='noopener noreferrer nofollow', which is an off-domain redirect. While vercel.link is a known Vercel domain, its presence on brooklynmuseum.org without the expected museum content suggests the site may be hijacked or misconfigured, and the redirect could lead users away from the intended destination. (location: page.html: <a id='fix-text' href='https://vercel.link/security-checkpoint'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/brooklynmuseum.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
brooklynmuseum.org 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.