context safety score
A score of 43/100 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
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
brand impersonation
The page at food52.com is not serving the expected food52.com content. Instead it displays a 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' interstitial that impersonates Vercel's brand and UI, presenting a fake browser verification spinner. This is not a legitimate Vercel challenge page — it is served directly from food52.com's origin, not from Vercel's infrastructure as a real bot-protection interstitial would be. (location: page.html: <title>Vercel Security Checkpoint</title>, page-text.txt line 1)
obfuscated code
The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using a rotating string-array decoder with numeric index arithmetic (e.g., parseInt(c(167))/1 + parseInt(c(171))/2 ...) and a self-defending anti-tampering pattern (the C() function calling .toString().search() on itself). This obfuscation pattern is consistent with tools like javascript-obfuscator used to conceal malicious payload logic from static analysis. (location: page.html line 2: <script type="module"> — obfuscated JS block with string array rotation and self-defending wrapper)
malicious redirect
The obfuscated JavaScript is structured to execute dynamic DOM manipulation and likely perform a bot-check that, upon 'passing', redirects or loads content determined at runtime. The use of dynamic getElementById, style manipulation, and a hidden #root div that is initially display:none suggests the real payload (including potential redirect destination) is injected by the obfuscated script after execution, not visible in static HTML. (location: page.html line 2-3: obfuscated script controlling #root visibility and DOM injection; body element with id='root' style display:none)
social engineering
The page displays 'We're verifying your browser' with a spinner, a classic fake CAPTCHA / browser-check social engineering pattern used to build user trust before executing a payload or redirect. The message 'Enable JavaScript to continue' pressures users to enable JS execution, lowering their guard. (location: page-text.txt line 1: 'We're verifying your browser', 'Enable JavaScript to continue')
hidden content
The #root container div is set to display:none in the initial HTML and is only revealed by the obfuscated JavaScript. This means the actual rendered content — including any malicious UI, credential forms, or redirect logic — is entirely hidden from static analysis and only visible after JS execution. (location: page.html line 3: <div id="root" class="container" ... style or CSS controlling display:none via JS)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/food52.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
food52.com currently scores 43/100 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.