Is filmexxx.live safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

critical

brand impersonation

The domain filmexxx.live is serving a full clone of the YouTube watch page, including authentic YouTube JavaScript bundles, CSS, favicons, UI skeleton, ytcfg/ytInitialData structures, and the YouTube logo SVG. The page replicates YouTube's interface in its entirety while being hosted on an unrelated adult-named domain. (location: page.html, metadata.json — domain: filmexxx.live serving youtube.com content)

critical

phishing

The cloned YouTube page presents a 'Sign in to confirm you're not a bot' / LOGIN_REQUIRED playability status prompt. This is a well-known YouTube phishing vector: a fake YouTube page triggers a sign-in wall to harvest Google account credentials from unsuspecting users who believe they are on the real YouTube. (location: page-text.txt line 1 — playabilityStatus.status: LOGIN_REQUIRED, reason: 'Sign in to confirm you're not a bot')

critical

credential harvesting

A hidden iframe loads accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin with passive=true and a continue URL redirecting back to youtube.com. On a fake domain, this pattern is used to intercept the Google OAuth/sign-in flow and harvest session tokens or credentials entered by the user thinking they are on the real YouTube. (location: page.html line 81 — <iframe name='passive_signin' src='https://accounts.google.com/ServiceLogin?service=youtube&passive=true&continue=https://www.youtube.com/signin...' style='display: none'>)

high

malicious redirect

The page sets a canonical link to 'undefined' (rel='canonical' href='undefined') rather than a real YouTube URL, indicating the clone is not properly configured and may redirect users through tracking or phishing flows. The alternate mobile link points to m.youtube.com for a specific video ID (y6KxzqCBpWE), anchoring the deception to a real video to appear legitimate. (location: page.html line 22 — <link rel='canonical' href='undefined'>)

high

social engineering

The page exploits YouTube's bot-detection UX ('Sign in to confirm you're not a bot') as a social engineering pretext to pressure users into entering credentials. This message is displayed on a non-YouTube domain, creating false urgency and legitimacy to manipulate users into signing in. (location: page-text.txt line 1 — playabilityStatus reason field and errorScreen playerErrorMessageRenderer)

medium

hidden content

A display:none iframe to accounts.google.com is embedded in the page body. This hidden iframe silently initiates a Google sign-in passive session check, which on a fraudulent domain can be used to detect login state, exfiltrate session cookies, or stage a credential-interception attack without the user's awareness. (location: page.html line 81 — <iframe name='passive_signin' ... style='display: none'>)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is filmexxx.live safe for AI agents to use?

filmexxx.live currently scores 40/100 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.