context safety score
A score of 49/100 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 entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) on domain cq0.co. The site is unreachable over HTTPS, which is consistent with a domain used as a redirect hop or link-shortener that forwards traffic before a valid TLS handshake can be inspected. Short, opaque domains (cq0.co) are commonly used as redirect intermediaries to obscure the final malicious destination. (location: metadata.json: tls block)
phishing
Domain cq0.co is a short, low-character, non-descriptive domain with unknown WHOIS age and redacted registrant data, no valid TLS certificate, and unknown hosting reputation. This pattern is strongly associated with throwaway phishing or smishing domains designed to be disposable and difficult to attribute. (location: metadata.json, .brin-context.md)
hidden content
The page HTML, visible text, and hidden content files are all empty, yet the domain resolves enough to have metadata collected. This absence of content with an active domain registration is consistent with a parked or pre-staged malicious domain, or a page that only serves content after a redirect or user-agent check, hiding its true payload from scanners. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cq0.coCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cq0.co currently scores 49/100 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.