context safety score
A score of 37/100 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
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
hidden content
JavaScript code actively hooks and intercepts all localStorage.setItem, getItem, and removeItem calls on iOS 18+ devices. The code reads the entire localStorage contents into a local object and logs all key-value pairs via console.log with Chinese-language comments indicating data capture ('劫持到数据' means 'hijacked data'). This constitutes unauthorized credential/session token harvesting from browser storage. (location: page.html lines 15-110, inline <script> block at document head)
credential harvesting
The localStorage hook intercepts all storage writes and reads, captures session tokens, auth cookies, and any credentials stored by the application. The code uses a task queue to process intercepted data asynchronously and replaces native Storage.prototype methods entirely, meaning any downstream code (including auth libraries) unknowingly writes to the hooked implementation. Console logs explicitly print 'hijacked data setItem/getItem/removeItem' in Chinese. (location: page.html lines 40-106, Storage.prototype.setItem/getItem/removeItem overrides)
obfuscated code
The localStorage interception script contains Chinese-language log strings ('通过ua判断系统为ios26，开始劫持localStorage', '劫持到数据setItem', '劫持到数据getItem', '劫持到数据removeItem') embedded within otherwise English-language page code. The functional comment '处理任务' (process task) describes a task queue designed to defer writing intercepted data, suggesting deliberate obfuscation of intent within a legitimate-looking e-commerce page. (location: page.html lines 39, 54-59, 70, 93, 99)
hidden content
The page is served through a deep iframe/router URL (pages.daraz.com.bd/wow/gcp/route/daraz/bd/upr/router?hybrid=1&at_iframe=1) with parameters including at_iframe=1, meaning the actual page rendering context is an iframe. The meta page-url differs from the canonical domain, potentially masking the true origin of injected scripts from security scanners. (location: page.html line 13, meta[name='page-url'] content attribute)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/daraz.com.bdCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
daraz.com.bd currently scores 37/100 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.