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.
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
malicious redirect
Three logo image variants (fixed, mobile, tablet) for the HAMAG BICRO navbar are loaded from 'en.server-backup.com.hr' instead of the legitimate 'en.hamagbicro.hr' domain. This off-domain asset reference could be used to serve modified or tracked versions of the official logo, monitor visitors, or as a supply-chain injection point. The normal-state logo loads from the correct domain, making the discrepancy suspicious. (location: page.html:506 — navbar-logo-img-fixed, navbar-logo-img-mobile, navbar-logo-img-tablet src attributes pointing to https://en.server-backup.com.hr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/logo-hamag.png)
hidden content
The page sets 'noindex, nofollow' in its robots meta tag. For an official Croatian government agency homepage, this is anomalous and prevents search engines and AI crawlers from indexing the page, reducing external visibility and scrutiny of the content. (location: page.html:10 — <meta name='robots' content='noindex, nofollow' />)
obfuscated code
The RevSlider plugin uses JavaScript unescape() calls to decode percent-encoded CSS strings and inject them into the DOM via innerHTML. While the decoded content in this instance is benign slider CSS, this pattern (unescape + innerHTML injection) is a classic obfuscation vector that could be used to smuggle malicious CSS or script payloads. The 12 flagged base64 blobs are consistent with standard WordPress font/emoji embeds and are benign. (location: page.html:965,976 — unescape() decoded CSS injected via htmlDiv.innerHTML)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/en.hamagbicro.hrCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
en.hamagbicro.hr 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.
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.