context safety score
A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
The domain 'gearupportal.com' is a typosquat/lookalike of 'GearUp Portal' or similar brand, constructed to deceive users into believing it is a legitimate gear/support portal. The domain name pattern (brand + 'portal') is a classic phishing domain construction used to harvest credentials or redirect victims. (location: metadata.json: domain=gearupportal.com)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) and the page returned no content, strongly indicating the site may be down between campaigns, cloaking content from scanners, or serving a redirect/payload only to targeted victims or specific user-agents. This is consistent with evasive phishing infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false; page.html and page-text.txt are empty)
brand impersonation
The domain 'gearupportal.com' mimics a legitimate support or retail portal (e.g., GearUp, a sporting goods or tech brand). The 'portal' suffix is commonly appended in brand impersonation campaigns to create plausible fake login or support pages. (location: metadata.json: domain=gearupportal.com)
hidden content
Despite a domain that has been active for 1321 days, all page content files (page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt) are completely empty. This is consistent with content cloaking — serving content only to real victims while presenting blank pages to scanners and bots. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/gearupportal.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
gearupportal.com currently scores 38/100 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.