context safety score
A score of 60/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
js obfuscation
JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation
obfuscated code
Obfuscated JavaScript (0x-style variable names, hex-encoded strings) injected directly inside a <style id='wp-custom-css'> CSS tag. The code contains a 'mobileCheck' function, click event listeners, localStorage manipulation (setItem/getItem), and window.open calls targeting '_blank'. This pattern is consistent with a malicious WordPress injection that performs conditional redirects on mobile users via click-jacking, hiding the behavior inside a CSS block to evade detection. (location: page.html, line 220, <style id='wp-custom-css'>)
malicious redirect
The obfuscated JavaScript contains 10 hard-coded short-url.win URLs encoded in hex: http://short-url.win/cMo3c5, /Yrd5c9, /YnK8c6, /mPi9c2, /gFg0c7, /VFe2c3, /vnE6c3, /xJH4c8, /pmS7c6, /Dua1c3. These are opaque shortener URLs that redirect to unknown destinations. Combined with the mobileCheck function and click-event listeners, the code likely redirects mobile visitors to these external URLs, bypassing the legitimate site content. (location: page.html, line 220, hex-encoded strings inside obfuscated JS block)
hidden content
A Top.Mail.Ru tracking pixel is loaded with style 'position:absolute;left:-9999px' making it invisible to the user. This is a covert tracking beacon that silently exfiltrates visitor data (IP, browser fingerprint, page views) to mail.ru analytics infrastructure (top-fwz1.mail.ru/counter?id=3641040). (location: page.html, near line 1147 (page-text.txt line 1147), <noscript> tracking pixel)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cn.swsu.ruCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cn.swsu.ru currently scores 60/100 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.