context safety score
A score of 63/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
phishing
6 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
hidden content
1 hidden or tiny iframe elements detected
hidden content
A full page section (row-unique-8) containing a contact form is hidden from all viewports via CSS classes 'desktop-hidden tablet-hidden mobile-hidden', rendering it invisible to users but present in the DOM and potentially processable by automated agents crawling the page. (location: page.html line 534, id='row-unique-8')
hidden content
Two hidden input fields ('redirect_to' and 'redirect_admin') are present in the live DOM outside any form element, disclosing the WordPress admin path (/admin) as a redirect target. These are remnants of a commented-out login popup but remain active in the page. (location: page.html lines 271-272)
hidden content
The Uncode WordPress theme has left its default demo/promotional footer section visible in the page, including 'Buy Uncode · $59' and links to undsgn.com vendor pages. This is off-brand third-party content embedded in the site footer that could mislead users or automated agents about the site's legitimacy and ownership. (location: page.html lines 615-659, id='row-unique-9')
hidden content
12 base64 blobs flagged by heuristic scanning are all confirmed as inline SVG placeholder images used by the lazy-load system (data:image/svg+xml;base64,...). These are false positives with no injected payload content. (location: page.html, multiple srcset attributes across image elements)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/espaitec.uji.esCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
espaitec.uji.es currently scores 63/100 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.