context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
malicious redirect
The scanned URL is findsolutions.io, but the page content, canonical URL, og:url, all internal links, and WordPress installation all point to www.intermedio.io. The page served at findsolutions.io is entirely the www.intermedio.io site (LuongSonTV Vietnamese football streaming). This is a domain redirect/cloaking where findsolutions.io silently serves content from a different domain, deceiving users and crawlers about the true destination. (location: page.html:14 - <link rel='canonical' href='https://www.intermedio.io/'/>; metadata.json domain=findsolutions.io vs page content domain=intermedio.io)
brand impersonation
The page fabricates endorsements and quotes from reputable Vietnamese and international media outlets (VnExpress, Vietnamnet, VTC News, Goal.com, Thể Thao 247, Tin Tức 24h, Báo mới) praising LuongSonTV. These quotes appear to be fabricated — they are presented as journalistic reviews but are embedded directly in the site's own HTML content with no links or citations to actual articles, constituting false brand/authority impersonation to build false credibility. (location: page.html:993-1059; page-text.txt:622-690)
social engineering
The page uses multiple fabricated user testimonials (attributed to 'Ngọc Hải, Hà Nội', 'Hoàng Minh, Đà Nẵng', 'Tấn Lộc, TP.HCM', 'Hà Leo, Hà Nội', 'Minh Nylon, TP.HCM') praising the service, presented as genuine community feedback. Combined with unverifiable media endorsements and superlative trust-building language ('số 1 VN', 'uy tín'), this constitutes a coordinated social engineering trust-building scheme. (location: page.html:984-990; page-text.txt:616-620)
hidden content
Multiple inline SVG placeholder images are used as src attributes (data:image/svg+xml base64 blobs) for lazy-loaded images. The brin-context reports 12 suspicious base64 blobs. These SVG placeholders are technically rendered as invisible content until JS swaps them — a common technique to hide true image sources from static scanners. While lazy-loading is legitimate, the volume of base64 SVG blobs combined with the domain mismatch warrants flagging. (location: page.html:478, 654, 660, 667, 673, 972, 1072, 1091, 1108, 1118, 1131, 1145)
malicious redirect
The page includes an off-domain form action (flagged by brin-context: off-domain form actions: 1) and loads a third-party script from s1.what-on.com (//s1.what-on.com/widget/service-v2.js?key=vkCt8), an external widget service of unclear reputation, which executes JavaScript on page load and could facilitate tracking or redirection. (location: page.html:210 - <script src='//s1.what-on.com/widget/service-v2.js?key=vkCt8' async='async'>)
hidden content
The plugin version metadata div is explicitly hidden via inline style 'display:none': '<div class="mb-4 text-left" style="display:none"><span>Plugin Version: 2.3.5</span></div>'. While minor, hiding plugin version information from users is a common technique to obscure fingerprinting data from casual inspection. (location: page.html:683-685)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/findsolutions.ioCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
findsolutions.io currently scores 36/100 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.
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.