Is dova-syndrome.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
57/100

context safety score

A score of 57/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
34
graph
70

5 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from dova-syndrome.hydr0.org but fully impersonates MP3.cc: the HTML title reads 'Download mp3 free, listen music online - MP3.cc', the logo, all navigation links, CSS, JavaScript, canonical URL, OG tags, and footer copyright all reference mp3.cc. The serving domain (hydr0.org) is never disclosed to the user, creating a convincing clone of a legitimate music site. (location: page.html:5 (title), line 9 (canonical), line 11 (og:site_name), line 18-19 (CSS/JS from mp3.cc), line 614 (footer copyright MP3.cc))

medium

malicious redirect

The page is hosted on dova-syndrome.hydr0.org but declares its canonical URL as https://mp3.cc/t/1198137195-dova-syndrome/ and loads all static resources (CSS, JS) from mp3.cc. One redirect was detected at the domain level. Users or crawlers landing on hydr0.org are served content presenting itself as a different domain, constituting a deceptive redirect/mirror arrangement. (location: metadata.json (redirects:1), page.html:9 (canonical href to mp3.cc), page.html:18-19 (external resource loading from mp3.cc))

low

social engineering

A sidebar navigation link to https://looz.net/ is styled identically to genre links (Pop, Dance, Rock, etc.) with the label 'Online Radio', disguising an off-site external link as an internal navigation item. It carries the class 'z__important' and opens in a new tab (target='_blank'), suggesting it is a promoted/paid placement deceptively integrated into the UI. (location: page.html:204)

low

hidden content

Audio file tokens in data-url attributes are double-base64 encoded: the outer base64 decodes to another base64 string that resolves to binary encrypted/signed tokens for fine.sunproxy.net. All 12 audio play links use this obfuscated token scheme to obscure the actual resource URLs from casual inspection, preventing direct URL extraction by automated tools or users. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589 (data-url attributes))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/dova-syndrome.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is dova-syndrome.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

dova-syndrome.hydr0.org currently scores 57/100 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.

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 26, 2026

Verdict Scale

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

Trust Graph

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.