Is draconian.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
58/100

context safety score

A score of 58/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
37
graph
71

5 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

medium

malicious redirect

The domain draconian.hydr0.org serves content that is a mirror/proxy of mp3.cc, with a canonical URL pointing to https://mp3.cc/t/2467158025-draconian/. The page was reached via a redirect (1 redirect noted in pre-scan signals) from a subdomain (hydr0.org) to content branded as MP3.cc. This subdomain-based redirection to third-party branded content is consistent with a traffic interception or cloaking setup. (location: page.html:9 - canonical href, metadata.json - domain draconian.hydr0.org)

medium

brand impersonation

The page is hosted on draconian.hydr0.org but presents itself entirely as MP3.cc, including the MP3.cc logo, branding, navigation, copyright notice '© 2017–2026 MP3.cc', and canonical links pointing to mp3.cc. The actual serving domain (hydr0.org) is unrelated to MP3.cc, constituting impersonation or an unauthorized mirror of the MP3.cc brand. (location: page.html:5,9,11,14,33,671 - title, canonical, og:site_name, og:url, logo href, footer copyright)

medium

malicious redirect

All audio file play URLs use the third-party proxy domain fine.sunproxy.net rather than mp3.cc or the hosting domain. The base64-encoded path segments in these URLs (12 suspicious base64 blobs flagged in pre-scan) route media requests through an unverified intermediary proxy, potentially used to track users, serve malicious payloads, or monetize traffic without the original site's consent. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551,570,589,608,627,646 - data-url attributes pointing to fine.sunproxy.net)

low

social engineering

The 'Other listen' tag cloud in the sidebar contains an entry that is a raw YouTube URL ('https youtu be cqzhvb3igfq si nckhamcqvk6fmfbi') embedded as a music search tag, which is anomalous and could be used to lure users to external content under the guise of music discovery. (location: page.html:688, page-text.txt:587 - tags_block list item linking to https://mp3.cc/t/732321762-https-youtu-be-cqzhvb3igfq-si-nckhamcqvk6fmfbi/)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/draconian.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is draconian.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

draconian.hydr0.org currently scores 58/100 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.