Is flingo.tv safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
29/100

context safety score

A score of 29/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

critical

brand impersonation

The URL being scanned is flingo.tv, but the page content is entirely that of Samba TV (samba.tv). The HTML declares data-wf-domain="www.samba.tv", title is "Samba TV Home Page", all branding, logos, and copy belong to Samba TV. The domain flingo.tv is serving a full clone of the samba.tv website, constituting clear brand impersonation. (location: page.html:1 — data-wf-domain, <title>, og:title, all page content)

critical

phishing

The flingo.tv domain hosts a complete replica of the legitimate samba.tv website including contact forms, HubSpot lead-capture forms (portalId 2164593, formId dbcecb02-70b3-4caf-8ea3-6da6b0b18732), and 'Talk to Sales' CTAs. Visitors who believe they are on samba.tv may submit business inquiries and personal data to an unaffiliated domain, constituting a phishing operation. (location: page.html:106-110 — hbspt.forms.create block; page.html:101 — nav-signup-master / Talk to Sales form)

high

credential harvesting

HubSpot contact and sales forms are embedded and will capture names, emails, and business information submitted by users who believe they are contacting Samba TV. The form data is sent to HubSpot portal 2164593 which may or may not be controlled by the legitimate Samba TV organisation, but is being presented under the fraudulent flingo.tv domain. (location: page.html:102-110 — HubSpot forms v2.js embed and hbspt.forms.create call)

high

malicious redirect

The page loads third-party scripts from multiple external origins (GTM, ShareThis, Elfsight, Jetboost, Finsweet CDN, cdnjs, HubSpot) under a domain (flingo.tv) with no established reputation. Any of these third-party scripts could be leveraged for tracking, redirecting, or harvesting data from users who arrive at the impersonation domain believing it to be samba.tv. (location: page.html:44-83 — GTM, ShareThis, Jetboost, Finsweet, Elfsight script loads)

medium

hidden content

Two identical zero-dimension GTM noscript iframes (height=0, width=0, display:none, visibility:hidden) are injected at the top of the body. These invisible iframes load googletagmanager.com and can silently track visitor data without any visible indication to the user. (location: page.html:96-100 — duplicate hidden GTM noscript iframes)

medium

social engineering

The page uses authoritative Samba TV brand language, statistics ('48 million addressable TV devices', '24 Smart TV Brands'), privacy assurances ('100% Opt-in', 'Completely confidential', 'Privacy compliant'), and press-feature logos to establish false legitimacy and trust under the unrelated flingo.tv domain, manipulating users into engaging with the site as if it were the genuine Samba TV property. (location: page-text.txt:19 — visible page copy; page.html:112 — section_mainpage content)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/flingo.tv

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is flingo.tv safe for AI agents to use?

flingo.tv currently scores 29/100 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.