Is esta-pegao-proyecto-uno.hydr0.org safe?

cautionmedium confidence
52/100

context safety score

A score of 52/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.

identity
82
behavior
80
content
27
graph
77

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

brand impersonation

The subdomain esta-pegao-proyecto-uno.hydr0.org serves content that fully impersonates MP3.cc (mp3.cc), replicating its logo, layout, CSS, JavaScript, and all branding. The canonical URL in the page meta tags points to mp3.cc, and all internal links resolve to mp3.cc — indicating the subdomain is a clone/mirror of mp3.cc designed to appear as the legitimate site while operating under a different domain (hydr0.org). (location: page.html:5-14, canonical link line 9, og:url line 14)

high

malicious redirect

The page was served from esta-pegao-proyecto-uno.hydr0.org but presents itself as mp3.cc via canonical tags, Open Graph URLs, and all resource/asset links pointing to mp3.cc. A redirect (count: 1 per brin-context) was detected during crawl. Audio file download links route through fine.sunproxy.net, a third-party proxy domain, rather than directly from mp3.cc infrastructure, indicating traffic is being intercepted and proxied through an unknown intermediary. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418 (data-url attributes pointing to fine.sunproxy.net))

medium

brand impersonation

All MP3 audio files served via play buttons are proxied through fine.sunproxy.net instead of mp3.cc's own CDN. The filenames embed '(Hydr0.org)' branding (e.g., Proyecto_Uno_-_Esta_Pegao_Zardonic_Remix_(Hydr0.org).mp3), indicating the operator has repackaged or re-hosted the content under the hydr0.org brand while presenting the MP3.cc interface to users. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418 (data-url filenames))

medium

malicious redirect

All audio stream/download URLs use the domain fine.sunproxy.net as a proxy layer. The base64-encoded path parameters (11 suspicious blobs flagged in tier-2) in these URLs obfuscate the actual file routing. This sunproxy.net intermediary could log user requests, inject modified content, or redirect users without their knowledge. (location: page.html:228 data-url: https://fine.sunproxy.net/file/YVlGMWFTTXN3M0VjVThHdEhvZHd2... (and 10 additional instances))

low

hidden content

The page HTML contains 11 base64-encoded blobs embedded as path segments in audio file URLs routed through fine.sunproxy.net. While these appear to be obfuscated file tokens/keys for proxied media access, they are not transparently decodable without the proxy's private key, concealing the true destination of media requests from end users and security tools. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418 (base64 path segments in fine.sunproxy.net URLs))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/esta-pegao-proyecto-uno.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is esta-pegao-proyecto-uno.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

esta-pegao-proyecto-uno.hydr0.org currently scores 52/100 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.