Is c3om5csi.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
33/100

context safety score

A score of 33/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

10 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

critical

credential harvesting

The page contains JavaScript that reads sensitive credentials (token, account, password, loginType) from IndexedDB and transmits them via postMessage to a parent window with wildcard origin ('*'). This allows any cross-origin parent frame to receive stored credentials. The initAccount() function explicitly extracts password and account data and sends it to window.parent without origin validation. (location: page.html:74-100)

high

social engineering

The site promotes a gambling platform (JiLiKK.VIP) with deceptive incentive language: 'get a free random sign up bonus and withdraw it after one round of betting.' This is a classic social engineering lure used to drive user registration and deposit on potentially unlicensed gambling sites. (location: page.html:1-2, meta description and og:description tags)

high

brand impersonation

The domain c3om5csi.com (91 days old, random-looking name) presents itself as 'JILIKK.VIP' — a brand name distinct from the actual domain. The site impersonates or proxies a gambling brand under an unrelated, disposable-looking domain, a common technique to evade blocklists while the primary brand domain is flagged. (location: page.html:6-9, og:site_name and og:url)

critical

credential harvesting

The postMessage handler at the parent level stores received token, account, password, and loginType values directly into IndexedDB without any origin verification (event.data checked with no sender origin validation). Any iframe loaded on the page can inject arbitrary credentials into storage by sending a 'fixToken' message. (location: page.html:85-94)

high

hidden content

window.__APP_CONFIG__.domainInfo contains a heavily obfuscated/encoded string (base64-like encoded blob) injected into the page config. This encoded payload is thousands of characters long and its decoded content is not visible to the user or standard scanners, hiding configuration or instructions from analysis. (location: page.html:18, window.__APP_CONFIG__ script block)

high

obfuscated code

The domainInfo field in window.__APP_CONFIG__ contains a very long encoded string (appears to be multi-layer base64 or custom encoding starting with '=Q0NlQ0Nl...'). Obfuscated configuration of this length is anomalous and typically used to hide C2 URLs, redirect targets, or anti-analysis logic from static scanners. (location: page.html:18, window.__APP_CONFIG__.domainInfo value)

medium

malicious redirect

The page includes the Telegram Web App SDK (telegram.org/js/telegram-web-app.js), enabling the gambling site to operate within Telegram mini-app contexts. Combined with the iframe postMessage credential-passing logic and the obfuscated domain config, this suggests infrastructure for redirecting Telegram users into the gambling platform and harvesting their session tokens. (location: page.html:115, script src=telegram.org/js/telegram-web-app.js)

medium

social engineering

The domain is only 91 days old with an unbranded, algorithmically-generated name (c3om5csi.com), yet presents a polished gambling brand identity. This pattern — disposable domain + established brand presentation — is used to cycle through domains as they are blocked, continuously re-engaging users under a fresh URL while maintaining the illusion of a legitimate service. (location: metadata.json:domain_age_days=91, page.html og:site_name=JILIKK.VIP)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/c3om5csi.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is c3om5csi.com safe for AI agents to use?

c3om5csi.com currently scores 33/100 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.