context safety score
A score of 44/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
The domain 'cpanel.site' directly impersonates cPanel, a widely-used web hosting control panel brand owned by cPanel, LLC. The use of 'cpanel' as the primary domain label on a non-official TLD (.site instead of .com) is a classic brand squatting pattern used to deceive users and automated agents into believing they are interacting with the legitimate cPanel service. (location: domain: cpanel.site)
phishing
The domain closely mimics the legitimate cPanel brand (cpanel.com) and TLS is not functioning (connected=false, cert_valid=false). A site impersonating a hosting control panel with no valid TLS is a strong indicator of a phishing setup targeting hosting account credentials or administrative access. (location: domain: cpanel.site, TLS status in metadata.json)
credential harvesting
cPanel impersonation sites are a well-documented vector for harvesting web hosting credentials (username/password for hosting control panels). The combination of brand impersonation, no valid TLS, and targeting a control panel brand strongly suggests credential harvesting intent against hosting account holders. (location: domain: cpanel.site)
malicious redirect
The page returned empty HTML and text content despite the domain being active and reachable enough to be scanned. Empty page content combined with brand impersonation and broken TLS may indicate the site serves different content conditionally (e.g., redirects or cloaked payloads depending on user-agent, referrer, or geolocation), a technique used to evade scanners while targeting real victims. (location: page.html, page-text.txt (empty content))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cpanel.siteCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cpanel.site currently scores 44/100 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.