Is cd3-binary-finary.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
51/100

context safety score

A score of 51/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
24
graph
71

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

Page is served from cd3-binary-finary.hydr0.org but fully impersonates MP3.cc: title reads 'MP3.cc', og:site_name is 'MP3.cc', canonical URL points to mp3.cc, CSS/JS assets load from mp3.cc, and the logo links to mp3.cc. This is an unauthorized mirror/clone of the legitimate MP3.cc website. (location: page.html:5-9, lines 11-14, 18-19, 33-36)

medium

malicious redirect

The serving domain cd3-binary-finary.hydr0.org involves 1 redirect (noted in pre-scan context). All audio playback is silently routed through fine.sunproxy.net via obfuscated base64-token URLs in data-url attributes, redirecting media requests through an unverified third-party proxy rather than the canonical mp3.cc infrastructure. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589)

medium

obfuscated code

All 19 audio stream URLs (data-url attributes) route through fine.sunproxy.net using long base64-encoded path tokens (12 unique blobs flagged in pre-scan). The base64 tokens decode to binary/encrypted data, obscuring the true file origin and bypassing direct attribution to mp3.cc. This pattern is consistent with traffic interception or unauthorized proxying. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589)

low

social engineering

The 'Online Radio' sidebar link (href=https://looz.net/) is styled with the class 'z__important' and opens in a new tab (target='_blank'), visually embedded among legitimate genre navigation links. This deceptive placement encourages clicks on an external unrelated domain, flagged as a deceptive link in pre-scan analysis. (location: page.html:204-215)

low

hidden content

An HTML comment at the end of the page leaks server-side timing and geolocation metadata: '0.741752; 1 (0.0007469654083252). (US|).', disclosing render time and likely user/session geolocation data to anyone inspecting the source. (location: page.html:695)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cd3-binary-finary.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is cd3-binary-finary.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

cd3-binary-finary.hydr0.org currently scores 51/100 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.

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 25, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

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.