context safety score
A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain 'fsvorjatps.xyz' uses a random-looking, non-mnemonic string as the subdomain-free apex, a strong indicator of an auto-generated or throwaway phishing domain. The .xyz TLD is heavily abused in phishing campaigns. (location: metadata.json – domain field)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) yet the URL scheme is HTTPS. This is consistent with a site that redirects HTTP traffic or serves content without a valid certificate, a common pattern in redirect chains used to deliver malware or harvest credentials before the user notices the cert warning. (location: metadata.json – tls object)
hidden content
Page HTML and visible text are completely empty (page.html and page-text.txt are zero bytes) despite the site being reachable enough to return metadata. This blank-page pattern is used to serve content only to specific targets (IP/user-agent gating) or after a client-side redirect, hiding malicious payloads from automated scanners. (location: page.html, page-text.txt)
social engineering
The combination of an opaque random domain, no resolvable WHOIS age, no TLS certificate, and a completely blank served page is consistent with a pre-activation or sleeper social-engineering lure — a page that appears inert to scanners but delivers a credential-harvesting or malware payload to targeted victims. (location: metadata.json – domain, tls, whois fields)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/fsvorjatps.xyzCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
fsvorjatps.xyz currently scores 45/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.