context safety score
A score of 62/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
malicious redirect
The page is served from gang-starr.hydr0.org but all content, assets (CSS/JS), and canonical links point to mp3.cc. The site mirrors/proxies mp3.cc content on an unrelated subdomain, constituting unauthorized content proxying with a redirect chain. The pre-scan context confirms 1 redirect was detected. (location: page.html:9 (canonical href), page.html:18-19 (CSS/JS assets from mp3.cc))
brand impersonation
The page fully impersonates MP3.cc — using its branding, logo, CSS, JavaScript, copyright notice ('© 2017–2026 MP3.cc'), and canonical URL — while being served from the unrelated domain gang-starr.hydr0.org. Users and agents navigating this URL would believe they are on the legitimate mp3.cc site. (location: page.html:5 (title), page.html:11 (og:site_name), page.html:633 (footer copyright))
hidden content
Audio file delivery URLs use base64-encoded path tokens routed through fine.sunproxy.net, obfuscating the true file source and enabling server-side tracking or substitution of delivered content without user awareness. 21 such blobs were identified. (location: page.html:228 (data-url attributes on playlist-play anchors))
social engineering
The page uses a 'robots: noarchive' meta tag to prevent archival and caching of the page, a technique commonly used by piracy and fraudulent sites to avoid accountability and reduce detection persistence by security crawlers. (location: page.html:8 (meta name=robots content=noarchive))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/gang-starr.hydr0.orgCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
gang-starr.hydr0.org currently scores 62/100 with a caution 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.