context safety score
A score of 72/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
malicious redirect
Page immediately redirects via meta http-equiv refresh (0 second delay) to /.well-known/sgcaptcha/ with query parameters encoding an IP address and timestamp: ?r=%2F&y=ipr:34.96.63.115:1774473623.205. This pattern is consistent with bot-detection or traffic interception infrastructure that fingerprints visitors before serving real content, and is a known technique used in cloaking and phishing delivery chains. (location: page.html:1 - <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;/.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2F&y=ipr:34.96.63.115:1774473623.205">)
hidden content
The page renders no visible text content (page-text.txt is empty) despite being a live TLS-connected site for cal-cca.org. The entire page body is a redirect shell with no legitimate content, consistent with a cloaked landing page that shows different content to bots/scanners versus human visitors. (location: page.html:1 - full page body is empty aside from redirect meta tag)
social engineering
The redirect path /.well-known/sgcaptcha/ mimics a legitimate CAPTCHA verification flow using a path that resembles the IETF-standard /.well-known/ directory, lending false legitimacy to what may be a visitor-profiling or traffic-gating mechanism. Embedding an IP address and Unix timestamp in the query string (?y=ipr:34.96.63.115:1774473623.205) suggests visitor tracking and potential differential content delivery. (location: page.html:1 - redirect target /.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2F&y=ipr:34.96.63.115:1774473623.205)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cal-cca.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cal-cca.org currently scores 72/100 with a caution verdict and medium 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.