context safety score
A score of 33/100 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
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses eval() with String.fromCharCode — common obfuscation
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
prompt injection
Hidden HTML element contains AI-targeting instructions
obfuscated code
Multiple instances of heavily obfuscated JavaScript using custom base-conversion encoding with eval() execution are present in both the inline script block and page-text.txt. Variables named _0xc69e, _0xc11e, _0xc50e with corresponding decoder functions _0xe82c, _0xe30c, _0xe57c use a packed/encoded string passed to eval(). The payload content is unknown without execution. This pattern is a well-known technique to conceal malicious JavaScript from static analysis. (location: page.html:1209-1215 and page-text.txt:996-1001 (inline <script> block at bottom of page))
obfuscated code
A second independent obfuscated eval() block (_0xc11e / _0xe30c) with a different encoded payload string is present alongside the first obfuscated block. Three separate obfuscated script payloads exist, each with distinct variable names and encoded data, suggesting they may perform different hidden operations. (location: page.html:1212 and page-text.txt:999 (second obfuscated eval block))
obfuscated code
A third obfuscated eval() block (_0xc50e / _0xe57c) is present. Having three distinct obfuscated payloads on a funeral/bereavement site is anomalous and warrants deep runtime deobfuscation to determine actual behavior. (location: page.html:1215 and page-text.txt:1001 (third obfuscated eval block))
hidden content
A dynamically injected AJAX endpoint '/ajax/funeral_director_framework_ajax?run=draw_preferred_partner_banners_ajax' injects arbitrary HTML from the server into the DOM via $('.preferred_partner_banners_cont').html(results.html). If the server-side response is compromised or returns attacker-controlled content, this is a vector for injecting hidden content or malicious markup into the page at runtime. (location: page.html:578-601 (get_preferred_partner_banners_mpu function))
malicious redirect
The AJAX banner handler checks results.login and performs window.location.href=results.link if true. This means the server can instruct the client to redirect to any arbitrary URL, which could be abused to redirect users to phishing or malware sites if the AJAX endpoint is compromised. (location: page.html:584-587 (success callback in get_preferred_partner_banners_mpu))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/funeral-notices.co.ukCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
funeral-notices.co.uk currently scores 33/100 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.