context safety score
A score of 48/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for https://cpx.to — a short link/redirect domain with no valid TLS certificate. Short domains like cpx.to are commonly used as redirect hops to obscure the final destination of phishing or malware delivery chains, and the inability to establish a valid TLS session prevents inspection of the actual landing page. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false, domain=cpx.to)
phishing
cpx.to is a URL shortener/redirector domain with unknown domain age, redacted WHOIS, and unknown hosting reputation. No page content was retrievable, which is consistent with cloaking behavior — serving benign content to scanners while redirecting real users to phishing pages. The combination of an opaque short domain, failed TLS, and empty page content is a recognized evasion pattern. (location: metadata.json, page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
hidden content
All content files (page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt) are completely empty despite a live URL being scanned. This absence of content strongly suggests active cloaking or bot-detection: the site detected the scanner and returned no content, hiding its true behavior from automated analysis tools. (location: page.html (0 bytes), page-text.txt (0 bytes), page-hidden.txt (0 bytes))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cpx.toCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cpx.to currently scores 48/100 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.
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.