Is btdig.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

brand impersonation

The page impersonates a Cloudflare CAPTCHA challenge page ('One more step', 'Please complete the security check to access', reCAPTCHA widget, CAPTCHA FAQ text) but is served by btdig.com, not Cloudflare. The page replicates Cloudflare's DDoS protection interstitial UI to gain user trust under false pretenses. (location: page.html:25-29, page.html:69-86)

high

social engineering

The fake CAPTCHA challenge page uses urgency and authority framing ('One more step', 'Please complete the security check to access') to coerce users into interacting with a reCAPTCHA widget. This is a classic social engineering pattern designed to manipulate user behavior under the guise of a security requirement. (location: page.html:25-29, page-text.txt:10-14)

medium

hidden content

A div with 'position:absolute', 'left:-250px', and 'top:-250px' is rendered off-screen and invisible to users. This hidden element is also being dynamically repositioned by a JavaScript setInterval loop that detects and moves elements with negative 'left' CSS values back into view, indicating intentional manipulation of hidden content visibility. (location: page.html:79-80, page.html:130-134)

high

malicious redirect

JavaScript captures the original URL in variable 'h' before the CAPTCHA challenge. After a successful CAPTCHA response POST to '/cdn-cgi/l/chk_captcha', the script calls 'window.location.replace(h)' to redirect the user. The URL is also manipulated via 'window.history.pushState' to mask the original location, and the full original URL (including fragment) is transmitted to the server as a POST parameter. (location: page.html:102-120)

medium

prompt injection

An HTML comment '<!-- brin-agent/1.0 -->' is embedded in the page source. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to target or fingerprint AI security scanning agents by name, potentially to trigger agent-specific behavior or to signal to the page's backend that an automated agent is scanning it. (location: page.html:14)

high

hidden content

A periodic beacon fires every 3,000,000ms (50 minutes) to a third-party domain 'gyrovague.com' using fetch with 'referrerPolicy: no-referrer' and 'mode: no-cors'. The request uses a randomized path segment to make each ping unique and harder to block. This covert beaconing to an unrelated external domain is obfuscated by the long interval and random path generation, suggesting tracking or C2 callback behavior. (location: page.html:136)

medium

obfuscated code

The beacon URL path is generated using 'Math.random().toString(36).substring(2, 3+Math.random()*8)' to produce a random alphanumeric string of variable length on each call. This obfuscates the destination path and evades URL-based blocklist detection, a common technique in malware and tracking beacons. (location: page.html:136)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/btdig.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is btdig.com safe for AI agents to use?

btdig.com currently scores 40/100 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 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

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

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.