context safety score
A score of 43/100 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
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
brand impersonation
The page at daxko.com renders a 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' page — impersonating Vercel's legitimate bot-protection interstitial. daxko.com has no affiliation with Vercel. This is a classic fake CAPTCHA/checkpoint page used to deceive users and automated agents into believing they are on a trusted platform. (location: page.html:<title>, page-text.txt:footer)
obfuscated code
The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using multi-layered string-array rotation, index-offset arithmetic, and self-defending anti-tamper patterns (regex-based toString detection). This is consistent with malicious obfuscation frameworks (e.g., javascript-obfuscator) used to hide credential harvesting, redirect logic, or fingerprinting payloads from static analysis. (location: page.html:line 2 — <script type="module"> block)
malicious redirect
The obfuscated JavaScript dynamically manipulates DOM elements and likely controls page flow after a fake 'browser verification' step. The pattern of hiding content in #root (display:none) and then revealing it via script is consistent with cloaking: showing a benign checkpoint to crawlers/scanners while redirecting real users to a malicious destination. (location: page.html:line 1 — #root style display:none; line 2 — obfuscated JS controlling DOM)
social engineering
The fake 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' UI with a spinning loader and message 'We're verifying your browser' is designed to create urgency and legitimacy, coercing users (and AI agents) to wait and comply with whatever action the obfuscated script demands next — a textbook social engineering technique. (location: page.html:line 1 — #header-text, page-text.txt)
prompt injection
The page title 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' and footer branding, combined with the obfuscated JS, may be crafted to manipulate AI agents that parse page content into treating the site as verified/trusted infrastructure, bypassing agent-level threat assessment. Serving authoritative-looking platform branding on a third-party domain is a prompt injection vector for LLM-based browsing agents. (location: page.html:<title>; page-text.txt:footer — 'Vercel Security Checkpoint')
hidden content
The #root container is set to display:none in the static HTML and is only revealed by the obfuscated JavaScript after execution. This hides the true page content from static scanners and non-JS crawlers, a cloaking technique used to serve different content to security tools vs. real users. (location: page.html:line 1 — <div id="root" ... style not set but JS controls display; line 3 body)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/daxko.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
daxko.com currently scores 43/100 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.