context safety score
A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain 'dockerhub.work' mimics Docker Hub (hub.docker.com), the official Docker container registry. The use of 'dockerhub' as the hostname under a '.work' TLD is a classic combosquatting technique designed to impersonate the legitimate Docker Hub brand and deceive users or automated agents into trusting the domain. (location: domain: dockerhub.work)
phishing
The domain 'dockerhub.work' impersonates Docker Hub and operates without a valid TLS certificate (TLS connected=false, cert_valid=false). A site mimicking a major developer platform while serving over an invalid/no TLS connection is a strong indicator of a phishing site targeting developer credentials or CI/CD pipeline tokens. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
Docker Hub impersonation sites are commonly used to harvest Docker registry credentials, API tokens, and developer account passwords. The combination of brand impersonation and lack of valid TLS strongly suggests credential harvesting intent targeting DevOps users and automated deployment pipelines. (location: domain: dockerhub.work)
malicious redirect
The domain could be used to serve malicious container image pull instructions or redirect CI/CD pipelines to pull tampered images, effectively acting as a rogue Docker registry endpoint. The '.work' TLD is frequently abused in redirect and typosquatting campaigns. (location: domain: dockerhub.work)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/dockerhub.workCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
dockerhub.work currently scores 47/100 with a suspicious 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.