context safety score
A score of 48/100 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
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
brand impersonation
The scanned domain getletterpress.com serves a page that fully impersonates postie.com — including the page title 'Direct Mail Platform | Postie', canonical URL set to https://postie.com/, og:url set to https://postie.com/, all branding, logos, and content referencing Postie. The page is presented as if it belongs to postie.com while being served from a different domain. (location: page.html — <title>, <link rel='canonical'>, og:url, og:site_name, entire page content)
credential harvesting
The page served from getletterpress.com contains a login link pointing to https://app.postie.com/users/sign_in. Users navigating to this page via getletterpress.com may be deceived into believing they are on the legitimate postie.com site and click the login link, potentially as part of a redirect-based credential harvesting flow. (location: page.html line 132 — <a class='header__login' href='https://app.postie.com/users/sign_in'>Login</a>)
malicious redirect
The domain getletterpress.com (domain age 3681 days, registered as 'letterpress' unrelated to direct mail marketing) is serving a complete mirror of postie.com content. This strongly suggests the domain is used as a redirect or cloaking layer to funnel traffic under a different domain identity to the Postie brand, consistent with a spoofed or typosquat redirect scheme. (location: metadata.json — domain: getletterpress.com vs. page.html canonical/og:url: postie.com)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/getletterpress.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
getletterpress.com currently scores 48/100 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.