Is croxyproxy.rocks safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
42/100

context safety score

A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
7
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

obfuscated code

Inline script uses multi-layer obfuscation: Function(new TextDecoder('utf-8').decode(new Uint8Array(atob(...)))) pattern decodes a base64 string into a hex-encoded string, then executes it dynamically via Function(). This triple-encoding (base64 → hex → eval via Function constructor) is a classic technique to hide malicious payloads from static scanners and AI content analyzers. The decoded payload cannot be reviewed without execution. (location: page.html:701 — inline <script> block)

medium

prompt injection

The infoBar banner contains an outbound link to reflect4.me/register with utm_source=front_top_banner. The domain 'reflect4.me' is unrelated to CroxyProxy and is embedded in a fixed overlay bar that is always visible. This injection point could be used to redirect users (including AI agents browsing through the proxy) to a third-party registration page under the guise of a CroxyProxy feature ('Configure your personal web proxy for free'). (location: page.html:984 — #infoBar <a> tag linking to https://reflect4.me/register)

medium

malicious redirect

The proxy form submits to a relative 'servers' action endpoint (action='servers') via POST. A web proxy by design routes all user-submitted URLs through its own servers, enabling man-in-the-middle interception of all traffic, including credentials and session tokens entered into proxied sites. The quick-links (Google, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.) use data-href attributes loaded by JavaScript, obscuring the actual redirect destination until runtime. (location: page.html:856 — <form action='servers'> and page.html:884 — #quickLinks data-href attributes)

high

credential harvesting

CroxyProxy operates as a man-in-the-middle web proxy: all HTTP/S traffic from users is routed through croxyproxy.rocks servers (server IP 143.244.207.157 exposed in footer). Any credentials, session cookies, or tokens entered into websites accessed through the proxy are fully visible to the proxy operator. The site explicitly encourages proxying of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, and other credential-bearing sites via quick-links. (location: page.html:856-884 — proxy form and quick links; page-text.txt:154)

medium

social engineering

The site markets itself as 'the most advanced secure and free web proxy' and claims 'All data is encrypted before transfer' and provides 'privacy protection' — while simultaneously acting as a full traffic interceptor. These claims are misleading: encryption between user and proxy does not protect data from the proxy operator itself. Users are socially engineered into trusting the proxy with sensitive browsing. (location: page.html:848-943 — marketing copy; page-text.txt:121-213)

medium

hidden content

An invisible 1x1 iframe is injected at the bottom of the page body with style position:absolute, top:0, left:0, border:none, visibility:hidden. A script is injected into this hidden iframe to load Cloudflare challenge scripts (/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js). While this is a known Cloudflare pattern, the hidden iframe technique is also used for drive-by exploits and tracking. The iframe content is dynamically generated, preventing static inspection. (location: page.html:987 — hidden iframe injected via inline script at end of <body>)

low

brand impersonation

The domain croxyproxy.rocks impersonates or mimics the legitimate CroxyProxy service at croxyproxy.com. The .rocks TLD variant is a common typosquatting/brand-cloning tactic. The site uses the same branding, logo (cdn.croxyproxy.rocks), and content as the canonical service, but operates on a different domain that users may not distinguish from the official one. (location: metadata.json — domain: croxyproxy.rocks vs legitimate croxyproxy.com; page.html:32-33 — CDN assets from cdn.croxyproxy.rocks)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/croxyproxy.rocks

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is croxyproxy.rocks safe for AI agents to use?

croxyproxy.rocks currently scores 42/100 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.

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.