Is fairdeal.live safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
39/100

context safety score

A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
75
content
0
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

hidden instruction

high hidden content ratio detected in DOM

high

brand impersonation

The page title is 'Dashboard' and meta description references 'CRM, CMS' admin theme, but the domain is fairdeal.live — a generic commercial-sounding domain hosting what appears to be a full admin panel application. The meta author tag 'Coderthemes' indicates a stolen or repurposed admin theme template being used to impersonate a legitimate dashboard/portal. The page loads an Angular app (app-root) with no visible branding, consistent with a spoofed login or admin portal. (location: page.html:3,9,10,50)

high

credential harvesting

The site serves a blank-rendered Angular SPA (page-text.txt is empty) with a full admin dashboard template (Coderthemes theme). The combination of an empty visible text layer, Angular app-root, and login.css stylesheet strongly suggests a credential harvesting login page that renders client-side only — evading static text analysis while presenting a login form to real users. (location: page.html:25,50,51)

high

phishing

The domain fairdeal.live hosts what appears to be a cloned or repurposed admin/CRM dashboard template (Coderthemes) with no visible page content in static extraction (page-text.txt is nearly empty). This is a classic phishing site pattern: a JavaScript-heavy SPA that renders a convincing interface only in the browser, avoiding detection by crawlers and static scanners. (location: page.html:50-51; page-text.txt:1-4)

medium

malicious redirect

External JavaScript is loaded from speedcdn.io (not a well-known CDN) for 'flashphoner.bundle.min.js' — a WebRTC/streaming library. Loading opaque third-party JS from an unfamiliar CDN (speedcdn.io) on an admin/login page introduces significant supply-chain and redirect risk. This script executes before any page content and could intercept credentials or redirect users. (location: page.html:13-14)

low

hidden content

Multiple commented-out viewport meta tags and script references exist in the HTML source, including a commented-out HTTP (non-HTTPS) jQuery UI reference from ajax.googleapis.com. While individually low-risk, the pattern of multiple commented-out resource tags suggests iterative evasion testing or template remnants used to obscure the page's true purpose. (location: page-hidden.txt:1-17)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/fairdeal.live

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is fairdeal.live safe for AI agents to use?

fairdeal.live currently scores 39/100 with a suspicious verdict and low 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 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

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.