context safety score
A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
malicious redirect
A third-party JavaScript file is loaded from 'secure.enterprise-consortiumoperation.com', a domain unrelated to C.H. Robinson. The domain name mimics an enterprise/consortium authority to appear legitimate. It loads both a JS file (792352.js) and a 1x1 tracking pixel, consistent with covert data exfiltration or malicious redirect infrastructure embedded in a trusted page. (location: page.html:150-152 — <script src="https://secure.enterprise-consortiumoperation.com/js/792352.js"></script> and <noscript><img src="https://secure.enterprise-consortiumoperation.com/792352.png"></noscript>)
hidden content
A 1x1 invisible iframe is injected at runtime via an obfuscated self-executing function (Cloudflare Bot Management pattern). The iframe creates a hidden script that sets internal challenge parameters and injects a secondary script from '/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js'. While Cloudflare Bot Management is commonly legitimate, the pattern of a hidden iframe dynamically injecting scripts with encoded parameters (r, t values) warrants flagging as hidden content execution. (location: page.html:2776 — inline <script>(function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument...}})();</script>)
obfuscated code
The Cloudflare challenge script at page bottom uses a self-executing anonymous function with obfuscated variable names (a, b, c, d, e), dynamic iframe creation with visibility:hidden, and base64-encoded timestamp parameters injected into child document scripts. This pattern is structurally indistinguishable from malicious iframe injection techniques. (location: page.html:2776 — self-executing obfuscated function injecting hidden iframe with encoded params 'r':'9d73389b3966e828','t':'MTc3MjY1MTg0Ni4wMDAwMDA=')
hidden content
A noscript fallback pixel from 'secure.enterprise-consortiumoperation.com' is present, ensuring tracking/exfiltration occurs even when JavaScript is disabled. This dual-delivery mechanism (JS + noscript img) is a common technique in credential harvesting and covert analytics setups. (location: page.html:152 — <noscript><img src="https://secure.enterprise-consortiumoperation.com/792352.png" style="display:none;"></noscript>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/chrobinson.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
chrobinson.com currently scores 47/100 with a suspicious 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.