context safety score
A score of 44/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for domain freeruproxy.ink. The site is unreachable over HTTPS, suggesting it may be down, sinkholed, or intentionally configured to avoid TLS inspection — a common trait of malicious proxy or redirect infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
social engineering
The domain name 'freeruproxy.ink' combines 'free', 'ru' (Russia country code), and 'proxy' under the .ink TLD — a pattern consistent with free proxy services that intercept traffic, harvest credentials, or redirect users through adversary-controlled infrastructure. Free proxy lures are a well-documented social engineering vector. (location: metadata.json: domain=freeruproxy.ink)
credential harvesting
Proxy services operating under deceptive 'free' branding are a classic credential harvesting vector. Traffic routed through such proxies can be intercepted in plaintext, especially given the TLS failure observed. Users deceived into routing traffic through freeruproxy.ink would expose credentials and session tokens. (location: metadata.json: domain=freeruproxy.ink, tls.connected=false)
hidden content
Page HTML and visible text are completely empty (0 bytes), yet the domain resolves and has an aged registration (4388 days). Empty page content on an aged domain with TLS failures may indicate cloaking — serving content selectively based on user-agent or IP to evade scanners while delivering malicious payloads to real visitors. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/freeruproxy.inkCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
freeruproxy.ink currently scores 44/100 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.