context safety score
A score of 74/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
malicious redirect
Page immediately redirects via meta http-equiv refresh (delay=0) to /.well-known/sgcaptcha/ with query parameters that include what appears to be the visitor's IP address (34.34.233.148) and a timestamp (1774498879.029). The path disguised under .well-known is atypical; legitimate CAPTCHA challenges are not served from .well-known. The redirect encodes the requester IP and timestamp, suggesting fingerprinting or bot-detection evasion to serve different content to scanners versus real users. (location: page.html:1 — <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;/.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2F&y=ipr:34.34.233.148:1774498879.029">)
hidden content
The page body contains no visible text or meaningful content (page-text.txt is empty). The entire page consists solely of a redirect meta tag, meaning all real content is hidden from static analysis and only served after the redirect resolves. This is consistent with cloaking — showing a benign or empty page to crawlers/scanners while redirecting real users to potentially malicious content. (location: page.html:1 — empty body with only meta-refresh redirect)
social engineering
The redirect destination path is named 'sgcaptcha', mimicking a legitimate CAPTCHA challenge page. Presenting a fake or deceptive CAPTCHA is a common social engineering technique used to establish trust before harvesting credentials, delivering malware, or redirecting users further. The parameter encoding visitor IP and timestamp into the CAPTCHA URL suggests targeted or dynamic content delivery based on visitor identity. (location: page.html:1 — redirect target /.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2F&y=ipr:34.34.233.148:1774498879.029)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/destinazioneospitale.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
destinazioneospitale.com currently scores 74/100 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.