context safety score
A score of 37/100 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
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
brand impersonation
The domain c-ctrip.com impersonates the legitimate Ctrip/Trip.com travel brand (ctrip.com). The site uses a hyphenated lookalike domain (c-ctrip.com) while displaying full Ctrip branding, logos, Chinese-language content, and official-looking navigation identical to the real ctrip.com. The canonical tag points to www.ctrip.com, confirming this is not the authoritative domain. (location: metadata.json: domain=c-ctrip.com; page.html line 17: <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.ctrip.com">)
phishing
The site presents a pixel-perfect replica of the official Ctrip homepage (携程旅行网) — including login/register buttons, hotel/flight booking forms, and account management links — hosted on the lookalike domain c-ctrip.com rather than the legitimate ctrip.com. Users who enter credentials or payment information would be at risk of harvesting. (location: page.html lines 112–199; page-text.txt line 6: login/register UI rendered on c-ctrip.com)
credential harvesting
The page renders a fully functional login and registration interface (登录/注册) on the impersonator domain c-ctrip.com. Any credentials submitted through these forms would be captured by the operator of this lookalike domain rather than the legitimate Ctrip service. (location: page-text.txt line 6: 登录 / 注册 UI elements; page.html line 112 onward: login wrapper components)
malicious redirect
The canonical tag redirects crawlers and signals to https://www.ctrip.com, while navigation links and DNS-prefetch targets mix c-ctrip.com subdomains with legitimate ctrip.com subdomains. This creates an environment where users may be silently redirected between the impersonator domain and real domains, potentially for session hijacking or credential interception. (location: page.html line 17: rel=canonical to www.ctrip.com; lines 8–14: dns-prefetch mixing c-ctrip.com and ctrip.com hosts)
hidden content
A div with id='tips_binding' is present with style='display:none', and an IE-update overlay block is present but hidden by default via JavaScript. While these may be legitimate UX elements, their hidden nature on a lookalike domain warrants flagging as potentially used to display deceptive content conditionally. (location: page.html line 116: <div id="tips_binding" style="display:none">; lines 117–136: hidden IE-update popup block)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/c-ctrip.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
c-ctrip.com currently scores 37/100 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.