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
phishing
Domain 'ctolabperfstats.com' mimics a legitimate performance statistics or CTO lab service with a fabricated-sounding technical name, consistent with phishing infrastructure designed to appear credible to targets in tech/enterprise environments. (location: metadata.json: domain)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) while the domain is active and registered. This is consistent with a redirect-only or pre-activation phishing domain that serves no legitimate content but may redirect victims via DNS or email links before TLS is established. (location: metadata.json: tls)
hidden content
The page returned completely empty HTML, page-text, and hidden-content files despite the domain being reachable enough to scan. Empty page content on an active registered domain is a strong indicator of cloaking — serving different content to humans/bots vs. targeted victims, or a domain parked in anticipation of a campaign launch. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
brand impersonation
The domain name 'ctolabperfstats.com' combines authoritative tech terminology ('cto', 'lab', 'perf', 'stats') to impersonate a legitimate internal tooling or analytics service, potentially targeting enterprise employees or developers who might trust a domain that resembles internal infrastructure naming conventions. (location: metadata.json: domain)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ctolabperfstats.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ctolabperfstats.com 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.