Is coppersurfer.tk safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
46/100

context safety score

A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
20
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

medium

cloaking

Page uses meta refresh redirect

high

malicious redirect

Page immediately redirects all visitors via JavaScript (window.location.replace) to a tracking URL with a unique UUID and browser fingerprint parameter. The redirect fires within 300ms via setTimeout as a fallback, ensuring no visitor escapes tracking regardless of fingerprint success. (location: page.html:6-15, script block)

medium

hidden content

An anchor tag '<a href=...>Click here to enter</a>' is wrapped in a div with 'display: none', hiding it from human users while remaining accessible to crawlers and AI agents. The hidden link contains the same tracking UUID and a distinct fingerprint value (fp=-3), suggesting it is planted specifically to be followed by non-browser agents. (location: page.html:32)

medium

prompt injection

The hidden anchor element with visible text 'Click here to enter' is concealed from human view but exposed in extracted page text (page-text.txt:2). This is a classic prompt injection vector: an AI agent parsing page text would see an instruction ('Click here to enter') and may follow the link, triggering the tracking/redirect pipeline without user awareness. (location: page.html:32, page-text.txt:2)

medium

social engineering

The noscript meta-refresh tag silently redirects users who have JavaScript disabled to the same tracking URL (fp=-5), ensuring universal redirection. Combined with the hidden link and JS redirect, the page uses multi-vector coercion to guarantee all visitor types — human, bot, and AI agent — are funneled through a fingerprinting and tracking pipeline. (location: page.html:33)

medium

obfuscated code

The page loads an external obfuscated fingerprinting library from '/js/fingerprint/iife.min.js' (FingerprintJS) and uses it to silently collect a unique visitor identifier before redirecting. The fingerprint value is appended to the redirect URL, enabling persistent cross-session tracking of visitors without consent or disclosure. (location: page.html:4, script block lines 18-23)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/coppersurfer.tk

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is coppersurfer.tk safe for AI agents to use?

coppersurfer.tk currently scores 46/100 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.

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 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

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.