Is dropcam.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
30/100

context safety score

A score of 30/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
15
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

high

hidden instruction

high hidden content ratio detected in DOM

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

malicious redirect

The domain dropcam.com silently redirects visitors to store.google.com/us/category/nest_cams with tracking parameters including 'GoogleNest' and 'dropcam=true'. The HTML <base href> is set to 'https://store.google.com/' and all page content, branding, and JavaScript are fully from Google Store infrastructure. The original domain dropcam.com is completely hijacked to serve Google Store content without any disclosure to the visitor. (location: page.html line 1: <base href="https://store.google.com/">)

medium

brand impersonation

dropcam.com presents itself entirely as the Google Store (store.google.com), displaying Google branding, Google favicons, Google fonts, Google Analytics (UA-54090495-1), and Google Tag Manager (GTM-MX89MJ). The domain dropcam.com was the original brand name for Nest cameras before Google acquisition, and the site now silently passes users into Google's ecosystem without identifying the dropcam.com domain or explaining the relationship. (location: page.html line 1: favicon URLs from gstatic.com/store; page-text.txt line 60: IJ_values referencing store.google.com)

medium

social engineering

The visible page content promotes a time-limited offer ('Ends 3/11') for Pixel 10a with trade-in and Google Store credit, creating urgency to drive purchases. Users arriving at dropcam.com expecting Dropcam camera support or legacy product information are instead redirected into a Google Store sales funnel without any contextual explanation of the domain change or redirect. (location: page-text.txt line 1: 'Get the new Pixel 10a for as low as $49 with eligible trade-in...Ends 3/11')

low

hidden content

The page embeds a Google Analytics API key (AIzaSyDrEsos3xsFSFqErUc9p9RLTRbzpNwsqm8) and nonce tokens ('czyPa3TPKRRaG1ZFFqVcJQ', 'qiLds-RyqlVkW7QcqNFPCA') inline in JavaScript that are not visible to end users. Additionally, WIZ_global_data and IJ_values contain encoded session configuration, feature flags, and account routing URLs that are embedded invisibly in page source. (location: page-text.txt line 60: window.IJ_values containing API key and auth URLs)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/dropcam.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is dropcam.com safe for AI agents to use?

dropcam.com currently scores 30/100 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.