context safety score
A score of 76/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
malicious redirect
The page immediately redirects all visitors via meta http-equiv refresh (delay=0) to /.well-known/sgcaptcha/ with query parameters that encode the visitor's IP address (ipr:34.96.44.236) and a timestamp. This is a covert traffic-interception/gate pattern used to fingerprint, profile, or redirect visitors based on their IP — commonly seen in cloaking infrastructure that serves benign content to crawlers while redirecting real users elsewhere. (location: page.html:1 — <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;/.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2F&y=ipr:34.96.44.236:1774461776.924">)
hidden content
The page body contains no visible content whatsoever (page-text.txt is empty). The sole purpose of this page is the silent redirect. This blank-page-plus-redirect pattern is a hallmark of cloaking: legitimate users and scanners see nothing, while the gate controls what is served next based on fingerprinted request attributes. (location: page.html:1 — entire page body is empty aside from redirect meta tag)
social engineering
The redirect destination path /.well-known/sgcaptcha/ abuses the RFC 8615 .well-known URI namespace — a namespace reserved for legitimate service metadata — to create the false appearance of a standard, trusted CAPTCHA checkpoint. This is a social-engineering misdirection technique designed to make the redirect seem routine and suppress user or tool suspicion. (location: page.html:1 — redirect target path /.well-known/sgcaptcha/)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/compare-verlag.deCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
compare-verlag.de currently scores 76/100 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.