context safety score
A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain eccdn.co uses a .co TLD which is commonly abused in phishing campaigns to mimic CDN or infrastructure services (e.g., impersonating legitimate CDN providers). The domain age is unknown and WHOIS privacy status is unverifiable, both common indicators of newly registered throwaway phishing infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: domain=eccdn.co)
brand impersonation
The domain name 'eccdn.co' appears designed to impersonate or appear associated with legitimate CDN (Content Delivery Network) providers. The 'cdn' substring in the domain is a known technique used to appear as trusted infrastructure to both humans and automated agents. (location: metadata.json: domain=eccdn.co)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) and the page returned no content. A domain that is live enough to be scanned yet returns empty page content with a broken TLS configuration is consistent with a redirect gateway, a cloaking setup that serves different content to crawlers vs. real users, or infrastructure used solely for malicious redirects rather than hosting legitimate content. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false; page.html and page-text.txt are empty)
hidden content
The page HTML and visible text are both completely empty, yet the domain resolves and was reachable enough to initiate a scan. Serving no content to scanners/bots while potentially serving malicious content to real browser sessions is a known cloaking technique used to evade automated security tools. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/eccdn.coCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
eccdn.co currently scores 47/100 with a suspicious 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.