context safety score
A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain 'c1oudfront.com' uses a homoglyph substitution — replacing the letter 'l' with the digit '1' — to impersonate 'cloudfront.com', the legitimate AWS CloudFront CDN service operated by Amazon. This is a classic typosquatting/homoglyph attack designed to deceive users and automated agents into trusting the domain as if it were Amazon's infrastructure. (location: domain: c1oudfront.com)
phishing
The domain mimics a well-known, trusted CDN/infrastructure brand (AWS CloudFront) via homoglyph typosquatting. Sites impersonating CDN or cloud infrastructure domains are frequently used as phishing landing pages or to serve malicious payloads under the guise of legitimate infrastructure, exploiting implicit trust in the brand. (location: domain: c1oudfront.com)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for a domain impersonating AWS CloudFront. A domain spoofing a CDN provider with no valid TLS certificate is a strong indicator of a malicious or fraudulent site that may redirect users or agents to credential-harvesting or malware-serving endpoints. Legitimate CDN infrastructure universally presents valid TLS. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/c1oudfront.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
c1oudfront.com currently scores 42/100 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.