context safety score
A score of 45/100 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
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
obfuscated code
A script uses String.fromCharCode(97,100,109,105,114,97,108) to construct the string 'admiral' at runtime, obfuscating the variable name being registered on window. Combined with a dynamically injected script from the third-party domain 'confesschairs.com' (unrelated to any known ad or analytics vendor), this pattern is characteristic of obfuscated adtech/malware loaders that hide their true purpose from static analysis. (location: page.html line 309: !(function(o,n){function $(){...}$.v=1,o[n]=o[n]||$})(window,String.fromCharCode(97,100,109,105,114,97,108)))
malicious redirect
A script dynamically injects an async script tag sourcing from 'https://confesschairs.com/v2qoycyVNOHcqUvZO_xctPH0sjirBP1wb2TOYybwATibQ8Csme6eBe0U' — an unrecognized third-party domain with a randomized/encoded path. This domain has no apparent relationship to CleanTechnica, Google, Meta, or any known ad network, and the URL structure (long random token path) is consistent with malware C2 beaconing, adware payloads, or drive-by redirect infrastructure. (location: page.html line 309: i.src='https://confesschairs.com/v2qoycyVNOHcqUvZO_xctPH0sjirBP1wb2TOYybwATibQ8Csme6eBe0U')
hidden content
A 1x1 pixel tracking image from Quantcast (//pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-MXx1pMvJa8BJY.gif) is wrapped in a div with style='display:none;', rendering it invisible to users while still firing a tracking beacon. This is a standard but covert user-tracking mechanism invisible in rendered content. (location: page.html lines 1150-1152 / page-text.txt line 707)
hidden content
A Cloudflare challenge-platform script is injected via a hidden iframe (height=1, width=1, position absolute, visibility hidden) that writes a script tag into the iframe's document head. While likely legitimate Cloudflare bot-detection infrastructure, the technique of injecting executable code through a hidden invisible iframe is a pattern also used by malicious actors to evade detection. (location: page.html lines 1215 / page-text.txt line 771)
obfuscated code
The FB SDK initialization block contains unresolved placeholder tokens '{your-app-id}' and '{api-version}' in what appears to be a copied template snippet that was never properly configured. While not directly malicious, this indicates the FB SDK is being initialized with invalid/template values, which could be a sign of a poorly maintained or tampered integration. (location: page.html lines 340-359: FB.init({ appId: '{your-app-id}', version: '{api-version}' }))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cleantechnica.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cleantechnica.com currently scores 45/100 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.