context safety score
A score of 28/100 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
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
brand impersonation
The domain conta.cc impersonates Constant Contact (constantcontact.com). The Cloudflare challenge script confirms the target zone is 'www.constantcontact.com', while the actual serving domain is the lookalike conta.cc — a classic typosquat/brand-impersonation pattern designed to deceive users expecting the legitimate email marketing platform. (location: metadata.json: domain=conta.cc; page.html/page-text.txt: cZone='www.constantcontact.com')
malicious redirect
The page uses a Cloudflare managed challenge (cType: 'managed') that proxies or redirects traffic from the lookalike domain conta.cc toward www.constantcontact.com infrastructure. This mechanism can be used to intercept credentials or session tokens before forwarding the user to the legitimate site, functioning as a transparent reverse-proxy phishing setup. (location: page-text.txt: _cf_chl_opt cZone='www.constantcontact.com', cType='managed')
phishing
The combination of a lookalike domain (conta.cc vs constantcontact.com), a Cloudflare challenge gate, and targeting of the Constant Contact brand creates a phishing infrastructure pattern. Users navigating to conta.cc expecting the legitimate service may submit credentials that are harvested before being passed through. (location: metadata.json: url=https://conta.cc; page.html: Cloudflare challenge referencing constantcontact.com)
credential harvesting
A Cloudflare managed challenge on a lookalike domain is a known technique for credential interception. The challenge collects browser fingerprints and tokens (cH, cUPMDTk, fa parameters) and can act as a man-in-the-middle layer between the victim and the real Constant Contact login, enabling session or credential theft. (location: page-text.txt: cH, cUPMDTk, fa, md token parameters in _cf_chl_opt)
hidden content
The page contains a <meta name='robots' content='noindex,nofollow'> directive, actively suppressing search engine indexing. This is consistent with threat actors hiding phishing infrastructure from crawlers and security scanners while keeping it accessible to human victims via direct links or redirects. (location: page.html: <meta name='robots' content='noindex,nofollow'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/conta.ccCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
conta.cc currently scores 28/100 with a suspicious verdict and low 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.