context safety score
A score of 60/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
hidden instruction
high hidden content ratio detected in DOM
credential harvesting
A Prismic CMS API access token ('accessToken': 'MC5XaVd...') is embedded in plaintext within the page's window.__NUXT__ JavaScript config object, exposed to all visitors and any crawling agent. This token could be used to authenticate against the Prismic API endpoint (https://fearless.cdn.prismic.io/api/v2) to read or potentially manipulate CMS content. (location: page-text.txt line 16 / page.html line 80 — window.__NUXT__ config.accessToken)
hidden content
A Mailchimp subscriber form script block (mc-validate.js + field definitions for EMAIL, FNAME, LNAME, ADDRESS, PHONE) is inside a malformed HTML comment (<!-- ... -- instead of <!-- ... -->) causing it to remain active and loaded rather than commented out. The script collects personal data fields and is not visible to users. This is the source of the 'suspicious base64 blob' and elevated hidden content ratio (0.27) flagged in Tier 2. (location: page.html line 33-34 / page-hidden.txt line 9-10 — Mailchimp comment block)
hidden content
A zero-size hidden iframe (height=0, width=0, display:none, visibility:hidden) is present for Google Tag Manager noscript fallback. While standard GTM practice, it contributes to the hidden content ratio and represents a data collection mechanism invisible to users. (location: page.html line 57 / page-text.txt line 3 — GTM noscript iframe)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/fearless.techCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
fearless.tech currently scores 60/100 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.