Is filv-beatmount.hydr0.org safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
49/100

context safety score

A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
60
content
24
graph
73

6 threat patterns detected

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

medium

malicious redirect

The page is served from filv-beatmount.hydr0.org but all canonical URLs, assets, links, and branding point to mp3.cc. The subdomain hydr0.org acts as a cloaked mirror/proxy of mp3.cc content, constituting a redirect/domain-spoofing arrangement where traffic is funneled through an unrelated domain (hydr0.org) to impersonate the mp3.cc service. (location: page.html:9 - canonical href and all internal links reference mp3.cc while the serving domain is hydr0.org)

high

brand impersonation

The page fully impersonates MP3.cc — reproducing its logo, branding, navigation, content structure, and copyright notice ('© 2017–2026 MP3.cc') — while being served from a different domain (filv-beatmount.hydr0.org). The canonical tag points to mp3.cc but the actual serving domain is unrelated, creating a deceptive brand clone. (location: page.html:5,9,11,576 - title, canonical, og:site_name, and footer copyright all assert MP3.cc identity)

medium

malicious redirect

Audio file URLs use the proxy domain fine.sunproxy.net rather than mp3.cc or the serving domain. This third-party proxy intermediary (sunproxy.net) intercepts all media requests, potentially logging user activity or serving modified/malicious content in place of expected MP3 files. (location: page.html:228,247,266,285,304,323,342,361,380,399,418,437,456,475,494,513,532,551 - all data-url attributes reference fine.sunproxy.net)

low

hidden content

Twelve suspicious base64-encoded blobs are present in the page (flagged by Tier 2 scan). These appear within the data-url attributes of playlist items as long base64 strings embedded inside the sunproxy.net file paths. While they may be legitimate encoded file tokens, their opaque nature obscures the true destination of media requests. (location: page.html:228,247,266 (and all playlist data-url attributes) - base64 segments in fine.sunproxy.net file paths)

low

social engineering

One deceptive link was flagged by Tier 2 analysis. The sidebar link to looz.net is styled identically to genre navigation links (same list, same icon style) but opens in a new tab (_blank) to an external third-party site, potentially misleading users into thinking it is an official MP3.cc genre/feature rather than an external service. (location: page.html:204 - <a href='https://looz.net/' class='z__important no-ajax' target='_blank'>Online Radio</a>)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/filv-beatmount.hydr0.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is filv-beatmount.hydr0.org safe for AI agents to use?

filv-beatmount.hydr0.org currently scores 49/100 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.

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, commits, and pull requests?

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.