context safety score
A score of 55/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
brand impersonation
The site operates on a third-party subdomain (clash-for-windows.fr.softmany.com) distributing 'Clash for Windows', a tool whose official GitHub repository (Fndroid/clash_for_windows_pkg) was archived and removed by the author. The site impersonates the legitimate software brand, presenting it as freely downloadable freeware version 0.20.39 from what appears to be a software aggregator, not the original author. Users searching for the official tool are likely to land here instead. (location: page.html:435, metadata.json, page.html:63-76)
social engineering
The page promotes Clash for Windows — a tool that was voluntarily taken down by its original developer — as a safe, free, up-to-date download. The framing ('Mises à jour régulières', 'Une équipe de développeurs efficace') falsely implies ongoing official support and trustworthiness, manipulating users into downloading software from an unofficial third-party distributor. (location: page.html:592, page-text.txt:322)
credential harvesting
A POST form (id='ratingForm') submits a hidden CSRF token and content_id to https://clash-for-windows.fr.softmany.com/rate-content. The CSRF token value ('sUml5bZq04trAxwcUTzR2HUUxZIrT2X9kIASNKNc') is also embedded in a meta tag and used in a fetch() call with explicit header exfiltration. While the stated purpose is rating, the JS exfiltration sink pattern flagged by Tier 2 (JS exfiltration sink patterns: 1) corresponds to this fetch() sending form data including the token to the server — consistent with a credential/token harvesting pattern if the backend is malicious. (location: page.html:449-452, page.html:820-828)
hidden content
The footer contains 15 col-auto div elements with empty <p> tags (lines 709-768), contributing to the small but non-zero hidden content ratio (0.01). These empty elements serve no visible purpose and could be placeholders for injected content or SEO manipulation, though no active payload was observed. (location: page.html:709-768)
phishing
The site mimics a legitimate software download portal for 'Clash for Windows', a well-known proxy tool, offering a download link at /windows/telecharger. Since the original project was taken down by its author due to security concerns, this third-party site redistributing it without attribution to a verified source represents a phishing-adjacent threat where users may be tricked into downloading a potentially modified or malicious binary under the guise of a trusted application. (location: page.html:505-511, page.html:63-70)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/clash-for-windows.fr.softmany.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
clash-for-windows.fr.softmany.com currently scores 55/100 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.