Is cloud.chch.it safe?

cautionmedium confidence
64/100

context safety score

A score of 64/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
57
graph
43

5 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

Page impersonates Microsoft Office 365 login with credential form

high

credential harvesting

Login form collects username/email and password fields. The page is hosted at cloud.chch.it but the form action POSTs credentials to sso.chch.it (a different subdomain). While both are under the chch.it domain, this cross-subdomain credential submission warrants scrutiny — especially combined with the 3 redirects flagged in Tier 2. The base64-encoded client_data parameter in the form action decodes to '{"ru":"https://cloud.chch.it/apps/oidc_login/oidc","rt":"code","st":"1c97072 8fc379188a9746008621081 1a"}' revealing a redirect URI, which is consistent with a Keycloak OIDC flow but also a common pattern in credential phishing proxies. (location: page.html:105 — form action=https://sso.chch.it/auth/realms/ChaosChemnitz/login-actions/authenticate)

medium

brand impersonation

The page presents as a Keycloak login portal for 'ChaosChemnitz', using standard Keycloak v2 UI assets (PatternFly v5, keycloak.v2 CSS/JS paths). The domain cloud.chch.it is an abbreviated/informal domain (chch = ChaosChemnitz shorthand). While this may be a legitimate self-hosted instance, the combination of a DV TLS certificate (not OV/EV), unknown hosting reputation, and the use of an unofficial-looking short domain impersonating a named organization presents a brand impersonation risk if this is not the canonical infrastructure. (location: page.html:10 — title 'Sign in to ChaosChemnitz'; metadata.json — cert_type=Dv, hosting.reputation=Unknown)

medium

malicious redirect

Tier 2 flagged 3 redirects before reaching this page. The final page is a login form, meaning users were silently redirected multiple times before reaching a credential collection point. This is a classic adversary-in-the-middle (AiTM) phishing proxy pattern where redirects are used to establish session context before harvesting credentials. The startSessionPolling call also embeds a redirect URL inside a base64 client_data parameter pointing back to cloud.chch.it/apps/oidc_login/oidc. (location: .brin-context.md — Redirects: 3; page.html:44 — startSessionPolling URL with client_data base64 payload)

low

hidden content

Tier 2 flagged 6 suspicious base64 blobs and 1 exfiltration pattern hit. The base64 blobs visible in the HTML are: (1) the client_data parameter in the form action, (2) the client_data in the session polling URL, and (3) the checkAuthSession token 'D+pS8DydMf+9rdQ89hZF9MxrQjLechx0EVfDxc3VtyQ'. The exfiltration pattern hit likely corresponds to the session token or the encoded redirect URI embedded in URLs. These are consistent with standard Keycloak OIDC parameters but warrant verification that sso.chch.it is a legitimate, expected SSO endpoint and not a harvesting proxy. (location: page.html:44,74 — base64 client_data blobs and checkAuthSession token; .brin-context.md — Suspicious base64 blobs: 6, Exfiltration pattern hits: 1)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cloud.chch.it

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is cloud.chch.it safe for AI agents to use?

cloud.chch.it currently scores 64/100 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.