context safety score
A score of 68/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
social engineering
The password reset button is statically labeled 'Usuario o Contraseña Inválida --- Restablecer Contraseña' (Invalid Username or Password --- Reset Password), falsely asserting to all visitors that their credentials are invalid to manipulate them into clicking the password reset link. This text is hardcoded in the UI, not triggered by an actual failed login. (location: page.html:107-108)
credential harvesting
JavaScript dynamically constructs and auto-submits a form POSTing to 'https://sso.195.co.il/' — a third-party Israeli SSO domain with no apparent affiliation to the school. The form includes a hidden 'redirUrl' field pointing back to the school's ssoLogin.php, indicating credential relay. This off-domain form submission is not visible to users. (location: page.html:129-132)
malicious redirect
JavaScript uses 'window.location = barEncLink(...)' to redirect users during SSO login flows. The encoded redirect destination is not transparent to the user, and the same code block references the off-domain sso.195.co.il endpoint, creating a chained redirect risk. (location: page.html:134)
credential harvesting
The page presents three simultaneous credential login surfaces (EduPage native, Google SSO, Microsoft SSO) on a single public homepage. Combined with the off-domain form POST to sso.195.co.il, credentials for major identity providers could be relayed to a third-party server. (location: page.html:100-118)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/edusantpacia.edupage.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
edusantpacia.edupage.org currently scores 68/100 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.
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.