Is gearpatrol.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
37/100

context safety score

A score of 37/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
0
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

obfuscated code

Script at page.html:528 loads an external payload from 'shydinosaurs.com' using triple-nested percent-encoding (decodeURI(decodeURI(...))) to obscure the variable name and source URL. This is a strong indicator of malicious or injected third-party script that evades static analysis. (location: page.html:528)

high

obfuscated code

Script at page.html:529 uses double decodeURI chains to hide the string 'googletag' and a long obfuscated localStorage key, then manipulates GPT ad targeting with data retrieved from localStorage. The obfuscation is inconsistent with legitimate ad partner code and may be used to inject malicious ad targeting parameters or exfiltrate data. (location: page.html:529)

medium

hidden content

A Contact Form 7 event handler at page.html:2412 uses eval() to execute arbitrary JavaScript returned by the server in 'event.detail.apiResponse.fb_pxl_code'. If the server response is compromised or if this is an injected handler, it enables remote code execution in the browser context. (location: page.html:2412)

medium

credential harvesting

An inline script at page.html:25 scans URL query parameters for plaintext email addresses (param 'adt_ei') and SHA-256 hashed emails ('adt_eih', 'sh_kit'), then submits them to the adthrive Identity API. While adthrive is a known ad network, this pattern harvests user email identifiers from URLs without explicit user interaction and strips the parameters afterward to conceal the activity. (location: page.html:25)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/gearpatrol.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is gearpatrol.com safe for AI agents to use?

gearpatrol.com currently scores 37/100 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.