Is capital.gr safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

prompt injection

Hidden HTML element contains AI-targeting instructions

high

hidden content

Two large hex-encoded blobs embedded as HTML comments using a 'Donut#...#' pattern. The payloads are opaque, non-standard, and cannot be decoded without a key. This is an obfuscation technique used to hide content from casual inspection while potentially delivering instructions or data to automated parsers or specific clients. (location: page-hidden.txt lines 48 and 53; page.html (HTML comments))

high

obfuscated code

The 'Donut' comment blocks contain long hexadecimal strings (512+ hex chars each) with no documented purpose. The naming convention 'Donut#<hex>#' is not a known ad-tech or CMS pattern and suggests a custom encoding or steganographic channel. This warrants further investigation as potential covert data exfiltration or hidden payload delivery. (location: page-hidden.txt lines 48 and 53)

medium

hidden content

Third-party script loaded from //pahtuz.tech/c/capital.gr.js (labeled 'Project Agora' in an HTML comment). The domain 'pahtuz.tech' is opaque and not a recognized ad-tech vendor. The script is loaded async/defer with no integrity check (no SRI hash), granting it full DOM access. This could serve as a vector for injecting malicious content or harvesting user data. (location: page.html line 337)

medium

hidden content

Auto-page-refresh logic fires every 300 seconds (5 minutes) via setInterval. When the page lacks focus it tracks 'zombiePageView' and 'zombieRefresh' events and schedules a location.reload(). This behavior is unusual and can be used to continuously re-execute any injected scripts or force re-exposure to ad/tracking content without user interaction. (location: page.html lines 88-115)

low

hidden content

A bit.ly shortened URL (https://bit.ly/3T0rMge) is appended as a hidden image to the DOM after ad consent resolution. The destination is unknown and the URL is intentionally obfuscated. While framed as an 'AdBlock Checker', the use of a URL shortener for a pixel ping is non-standard and hides the true destination. (location: page.html line 992)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/capital.gr

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is capital.gr safe for AI agents to use?

capital.gr currently scores 40/100 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.