context safety score
A score of 69/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
js obfuscation
Obfuscated document.write with encoded content
credential harvesting
Login form collecting email address and password fields via POST to /login.php. The site presents as a Serbian web directory/portal (cu.rs) and collects credentials. There is no visible registration flow, password reset, or account management context, and the form is presented prominently in the header. The TLS certificate is a basic DV cert from Let's Encrypt with only 43 days until expiry, providing minimal identity assurance. (location: page.html:21-25, form#templatemo_login, action=/login.php)
social engineering
The page uses trust-building language claiming all listed sites are 'verified and reliable' ('provereni i pouzdani sajtovi') without any verifiable verification mechanism described. This establishes false trust to encourage users to follow outbound links to third-party sites. (location: page.html:41, templatemo_banner paragraph)
hidden content
Google Analytics script uses document.write with unescape() to dynamically inject a script tag via encoded string ('%3Cscript src=...'). While this is a legacy GA pattern, it obfuscates the script source from static analysis and could be used to load arbitrary scripts by modifying the injected URL. (location: page.html:166-169, inline script block)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/cu.rsCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
cu.rs currently scores 69/100 with a caution 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.