Is duft-punk.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
69/100

context safety score

A score of 69/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
50
graph
71

4 threat patterns detected

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from duft-punk.hydr0.org but fully impersonates MP3.cc, including its logo, branding, CSS/JS assets loaded from mp3.cc, copyright notice '© 2017–2026 MP3.cc', and canonical URL pointing to mp3.cc. The subdomain 'hydr0.org' (using zero instead of letter 'o') is itself a typosquat-style domain hosting content that presents entirely as a different brand. (location: page.html:5,9,11,14,33-36,234 — title tag, canonical tag, og:site_name, logo, footer copyright)

medium

malicious redirect

Tier 2 pre-scan signals report 1 redirect and a user-agent differential ratio of 0.55, indicating the server returns meaningfully different content depending on the user-agent. This is a classic cloaking technique: presenting benign content to crawlers/scanners while redirecting or serving different content to real users or targeted agents. (location: .brin-context.md — Redirects: 1, User-agent diff ratio: 0.55)

medium

social engineering

The site mimics a legitimate free MP3 download service (MP3.cc) to lure users into interacting with the page. The 404 'Duft Punk' page (a misspelling of the well-known artist 'Daft Punk') acts as a search-bait lure, drawing in users searching for the real artist. The contact email 'hydrofm@yandex.com' is a Yandex address inconsistent with a legitimate Western music service, and the hosting domain hydr0.org is operated separately from mp3.cc. (location: page.html:224,234 — h2 'Duft Punk', footer email hydrofm@yandex.com)

medium

brand impersonation

All static assets (CSS, JS, fonts, images) are loaded cross-origin directly from mp3.cc infrastructure, while the page is served from hydr0.org. This creates a convincing visual clone of MP3.cc without authorization, constituting brand impersonation and potentially a terms-of-service violation or hotlinking attack. (location: page.html:18-19 — stylesheet and script src pointing to mp3.cc)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/duft-punk.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is duft-punk.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

duft-punk.hydr0.org currently scores 69/100 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.