Is capetinhas.blog safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

cloaking

Page checks user-agent for bot/crawler strings to serve different content

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

malicious redirect

Mobile-only script conditionally loads two external scripts from cdnflex.me (an ad/malware distribution domain) via dynamically created script tags. The parameters 'd=l1' and 'd=inpage' suggest layer-1 popup/redirect and in-page ad injection payloads. This pattern is commonly used to serve drive-by malware or force redirects on mobile visitors without desktop security tools detecting it. (location: page.html:14 — if(isMobileDevice()) block loading //cdnflex.me/lib.php?site_key=capep0p and //cdnflex.me/lib.php?site_key=cappage)

medium

hidden content

A hidden 1x1 pixel invisible iframe is injected into the document body by an inline Cloudflare challenge script. While iframes of this kind are sometimes legitimate Cloudflare bot-detection mechanisms, the inline script dynamically writes JavaScript into the iframe's document, which is an obfuscated code execution pattern that can be abused to exfiltrate data or execute payloads outside the main document context. (location: page.html:14 — inline script creating iframe with height=1, width=1, style visibility:hidden, injecting script via contentDocument)

medium

social engineering

The site claims to offer leaked OnlyFans, Privacy, and Fansly content for free ('Vazamentos do onlyfans, privacy, fansly e etc'). This is a lure tactic commonly used to attract victims to sites that harvest credentials, serve malware, or force subscriptions. Promising free exclusive/leaked adult content is a well-documented social engineering vector. (location: page-text.txt:1 — 'Vazamentos do onlyfans, privacy, fansly e etc' and repeated promises of free exclusive content)

medium

obfuscated code

The page contains a Cloudflare challenge script that uses a base64-encoded parameter (t='MTc3MjYzNDIxMQ==') and dynamically constructs and injects a script element inside a hidden iframe's document. This obfuscated multi-stage script execution pattern obscures the actual code being run from static analysis and CSP controls. (location: page.html:14 — window.__CF$cv$params block with base64 t value and dynamic script injection into hidden iframe contentDocument)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/capetinhas.blog

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is capetinhas.blog safe for AI agents to use?

capetinhas.blog currently scores 43/100 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.