context safety score
A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) for globalcdn.co. The site is unreachable over HTTPS or presents no valid certificate, which is consistent with a domain used for redirect infrastructure, typosquatting, or a parked/malicious placeholder that intercepts traffic without a legitimate TLS identity. (location: metadata.json: tls object)
brand impersonation
The domain 'globalcdn.co' mimics the naming convention of legitimate CDN providers (e.g., Cloudflare, Fastly, jsDelivr) by incorporating 'cdn' into a .co TLD. This pattern is commonly used to impersonate trusted content delivery infrastructure and deceive users or automated agents into trusting served content or scripts. (location: metadata.json: domain=globalcdn.co)
phishing
Domain age is unknown/null, WHOIS privacy status is unknown, and TLS is completely invalid. Combined with a CDN-impersonating name, this profile matches newly registered or privacy-shielded domains stood up for short-lived phishing campaigns before blocklisting. (location: metadata.json: whois and tls fields)
hidden content
The context file references a page-hidden.txt file for extracted hidden content, but page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt are all empty. An empty page that is still reachable at the domain level may indicate cloaking — serving different content to crawlers/scanners than to real victims or targeted agents. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/globalcdn.coCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
globalcdn.co currently scores 49/100 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.