Is doram-ru.org safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
80
content
34
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

brand impersonation

The site operates at doram-ru.org (217 days old) but consistently presents itself as 'doramiru.com' or 'doramru.com' across OG meta tags, schema.org markup, search form targets, and internal links. The canonical URL and OG url both point to doram-ru.com, not the actual serving domain doram-ru.org. This domain mismatch suggests the site is impersonating or squatting on the established doramiru.com brand. (location: page.html lines 70-73, 308, 311; meta og:url content='https://doram-ru.com/', schema itemprop url='https://doramru.com/')

medium

credential harvesting

An inline login form collects username (login_name) and password (login_password) fields and submits via POST to '#' with no visible action URL specified. The user_hash (dle_login_hash) is exposed in JavaScript as a plaintext SHA1 hash '8568448e0bb1d333fb5996efebb7bb38075282ce' and sent in AJAX requests to controller.php, potentially enabling session hijacking or credential replay attacks. (location: page.html lines 329-339, 1357, 1502)

medium

hidden content

A Yandex Metrika pixel tracker is rendered off-screen using 'position:absolute; left:-9999px;' to invisibly track all visitors. Additionally, a LiveInternet counter image is loaded with 'opacity: 0' and 'border:0', making it completely invisible while still tracking referrer, screen resolution, page URL, and page title. (location: page.html lines 1337, 1342; page-text.txt lines 1139, 1342)

low

hidden content

Multiple navigation H1 and H6 elements are set to 'display: none', concealing text from users while remaining visible to crawlers and AI agents. Examples include the H1 header 'Смотреть дорамы онлайн...' and several nav H6 elements. This is a classic SEO cloaking technique that can also mislead AI agents parsing page structure. (location: page.html lines 259, 272, 361, 851, 862, 868)

medium

malicious redirect

A dynamic script loader runs on page load (IIFE) that conditionally loads different third-party ad scripts (ru.viadata.store or widget.adplay.ru) based on sessionStorage state and randomization. The script rotates ad payloads dynamically and appends them to document.head without user consent or visibility, with one of the source URLs (widget.adplay.ru) being an unknown ad network that could serve malicious redirects. (location: page.html lines 196-247; page-text.txt lines 10-60)

low

hidden content

An empty base64 script tag is present: '<script src="data:text/javascript;base64,"></script>'. While the payload is empty here, this pattern is used for obfuscated code delivery and may indicate a template or placeholder for injecting encoded scripts. (location: page.html line 1701)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/doram-ru.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is doram-ru.org safe for AI agents to use?

doram-ru.org 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.