context safety score
A score of 73/100 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
social engineering
A social media navigation link displays the visible label 'ok.ru' (a Russian social network) but the actual href points to 'http://instagram.com'. This is a deceptive mislabeling of a link — the displayed text does not match the destination, which is a classic social engineering / deceptive link pattern flagged as a deceptive link by the Tier 2 scanner. (location: page.html:112 — menu-item-35, <a href="http://instagram.com"><span class="screen-reader-text">ok.ru</span></a>)
hidden content
The contact form contains an anti-spam honeypot field rendered with 'display: none !important' that includes a visible Delta (Δ) character and a textarea named '_wpcf7_ak_hp_textarea'. While this is a standard Akismet/CF7 honeypot mechanism, the inline script inside the hidden element dynamically sets a hidden input value to the current timestamp, which constitutes content intentionally hidden from the user. This accounts for the 9 suspicious base64-adjacent inline script patterns noted by the scanner; no actual malicious payload was found. (location: page.html:434 — <p style="display: none !important;"> honeypot block inside wpcf7 form)
hidden content
The CSS rule '.type-post .entry-footer { position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden; }' renders post footer elements visually hidden (1x1 pixel, clipped). This is a common WordPress accessibility/layout pattern but constitutes content hidden from visual users while remaining in the DOM. (location: page.html:39 — inline style id='admiral-stylesheet-inline-css')
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/dosaafgrodno.byCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
dosaafgrodno.by currently scores 73/100 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.