Is dr-beriz.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
51/100

context safety score

A score of 51/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
24
graph
71

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from the subdomain dr-beriz.hydr0.org but presents itself entirely as MP3.cc, using MP3.cc branding, logo, canonical URLs pointing to mp3.cc, and Open Graph metadata claiming og:site_name='MP3.cc'. The actual serving domain (hydr0.org) is not disclosed to the user, creating a deceptive mirror/clone of the legitimate MP3.cc brand. (location: page.html:5,9,11,14 — <title>, canonical link, og:site_name, og:url all reference mp3.cc while served from dr-beriz.hydr0.org)

medium

malicious redirect

The canonical tag and all internal navigation links redirect users to mp3.cc (a different domain), while the page is actually hosted on dr-beriz.hydr0.org. The pre-scan context also flagged 1 redirect. Users interacting with content may be redirected off the hosting domain without clear notice. (location: page.html:9 — <link rel='canonical' href='https://mp3.cc/t/47015712-dr-beriz/'>)

medium

malicious redirect

Audio file play URLs use the third-party proxy domain fine.sunproxy.net to serve MP3 files, routing user traffic and potentially exposing IP addresses and behavior to an unrelated proxy network. All 21 track play links route through this proxy rather than the canonical mp3.cc or hydr0.org domains. (location: page.html:228,247,266 (and all data-url attributes) — data-url='https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/...')

low

hidden content

MP3 file URLs embedded in data-url attributes contain long base64-encoded path segments (12 suspicious base64 blobs flagged by pre-scan). While these appear to be encoded file paths for the proxy, they obscure the actual destination file paths and make it impossible for users or automated tools to verify the true resource being fetched without decoding. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589,608 — data-url base64 path segments in fine.sunproxy.net URLs)

low

social engineering

The 'Other listen' section contains a tag link with the text 'https youtu be cqzhvb3igfq si nckhamcqvk6fmfbi' rendered as plain text in an anchor pointing to an mp3.cc search URL. This mimics a YouTube URL in visible text to lure users expecting YouTube content to an MP3 download site instead. (location: page.html:669 / page-text.txt:568 — tag link text 'https youtu be cqzhvb3igfq si nckhamcqvk6fmfbi')

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/dr-beriz.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is dr-beriz.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

dr-beriz.hydr0.org currently scores 51/100 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.