Is flyasiana.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
39/100

context safety score

A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
75
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

high

hidden instruction

high hidden content ratio detected in DOM

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

obfuscated code

Three script tags and a stylesheet with heavily obfuscated, random-looking paths are injected at the end of the body: '/WadCOPd72cHE6Pu1a9Qdnc6q/7SYhcrrk3a0VSf9X/eQUCVyttMg/AyYAO3/AnOS4B', '/WadCOPd72cHE6Pu1a9Qdnc6q/fDYh/NVR1VittMg/dWoFSn/JdLXVY', and '/WadCOPd72cHE6Pu1a9Qdnc6q/7SYh/NVR1VittMg/UAovL3/EuKDUq'. These do not match any legitimate Asiana Airlines asset naming convention and are consistent with injected malware or skimmer payloads. A hidden overlay div '#sec-overlay' with '#sec-container' is also injected alongside these scripts, a common pattern for credential-harvesting overlays. (location: page.html:141)

critical

credential harvesting

A hidden div with id='sec-overlay' containing a nested 'sec-container' is injected immediately after the obfuscated scripts. This pattern is a well-known indicator of an on-page credential-harvesting overlay that can be programmatically shown over legitimate content to capture user login or payment data. (location: page.html:141)

high

hidden content

The '#sec-overlay' div is rendered with 'display:none' and populated by the obfuscated async script '/WadCOPd72cHE6Pu1a9Qdnc6q/7SYh/NVR1VittMg/UAovL3/EuKDUq'. The visible page text contains only 'Loading' spinners with no other content, meaning the obfuscated scripts and hidden overlay constitute the functional payload of the page, invisible to casual inspection. (location: page.html:141)

medium

malicious redirect

The page immediately redirects all visitors via 'goPage()' on body load. While most redirect targets are within flyasiana.com, the redirect logic runs before page content renders and combined with the obfuscated script injection, this pattern can be used to funnel users through a malicious intermediary or to mask the injection activity during transit. (location: page.html:122)

medium

brand impersonation

The page title and structure fully impersonate Asiana Airlines ('ASIANA AIRLINES'), using official-looking CSS and JS paths under '/C/pc/' and '/C/mobile/'. If the obfuscated scripts have been injected by a third party onto the real flyasiana.com, this constitutes a supply-chain compromise of a legitimate brand's site, making the threat highly credible to users and AI agents interacting with it. (location: page.html:8)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/flyasiana.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is flyasiana.com safe for AI agents to use?

flyasiana.com currently scores 39/100 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.