context safety score
A score of 48/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for fastscr.cc. The domain uses a .cc TLD with no valid certificate, no SAN match, and unknown hosting — consistent with a redirect/landing infrastructure used to funnel victims without exposing a stable origin. The domain likely serves as a fast-flux or cloaked redirect node. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false, tls.san_match=false)
phishing
Domain fastscr.cc exhibits multiple low-trust signals: unknown domain age, WHOIS privacy status unknown, unknown hosting reputation, TLS completely non-functional, and a .cc ccTLD commonly abused in phishing campaigns. The name 'fastscr' may be a shortening of 'fast screen' or 'fast script', patterns used in phishing lures and credential-harvesting pages. (location: metadata.json, .brin-context.md)
hidden content
Page HTML, visible text, and hidden text files are all completely empty despite the domain being reachable enough to generate metadata. This blank-page pattern is a common cloaking technique: the server delivers empty content to scanners/crawlers while serving malicious payloads to targeted human visitors based on user-agent, referrer, geolocation, or cookie state. (location: page.html (0 bytes), page-text.txt (0 bytes), page-hidden.txt (0 bytes))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/fastscr.ccCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
fastscr.cc currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious 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.