context safety score
A score of 61/100 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
obfuscated code
A script with a highly obfuscated, randomized-looking path '/my-like-at-wer-Retures-the-means-Hous-wall-thoul' is loaded asynchronously in the <head> with no recognizable purpose. The path does not correspond to any known legitimate resource for this site, and is consistent with a compromised-site injected script loader or malware beacon. It is loaded before any other page content. (location: page.html:7 — <script src="/my-like-at-wer-Retures-the-means-Hous-wall-thoul" async></script>)
hidden content
A Google Tag Manager noscript iframe (GTM-TNFL52F) is present with display:none and visibility:hidden. While GTM itself is commonly legitimate, the noscript iframe is functionally invisible and loads external content without user awareness. The GTM container ID should be verified as belonging to this organization. (location: page.html:47 — <iframe src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-TNFL52F" height="0" width="0" style="display:none;visibility:hidden">)
credential harvesting
The page presents a 401 error with a login prompt directing users to '/customer-portal/login'. The pre-scan flagged 3 credential forms on the broader site. This error page acts as a social funnel directing unauthenticated users toward login. Combined with the suspicious injected script (line 7), any credentials entered could be intercepted by the injected script before submission. (location: page.html:100 — <a href="/customer-portal/login" target="_blank">the Gazette Customer Portal</a>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/dash.gazette.govt.nzCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
dash.gazette.govt.nz currently scores 61/100 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.