context safety score
A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
hidden instruction
high hidden content ratio detected in DOM
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
hidden content
Page-text.txt is entirely blank/whitespace — all visible content is absent. The page renders via Angular (app-root) with heavy JavaScript bundles, meaning content is hidden from static analysis and only revealed at runtime. This is a common technique used by gambling/fraud sites to evade crawlers and content filters. (location: page.html:49, page-text.txt)
hidden content
Commented-out IP harvesting script using api.ipify.org with JSONP callback 'getIP' that would call document.write() with the visitor's public IP. Although currently commented out, its presence indicates prior intent to collect visitor IP addresses covertly. (location: page.html:22-28, page-hidden.txt:7-13)
hidden content
Commented-out Facebook Meta Pixel (ID: 1949390595505532) with PageView tracking. While commonly used for advertising, on a site with no visible content and gambling indicators, this represents covert user tracking infrastructure that has been temporarily disabled. (location: page.html:30-44, page-hidden.txt:14-30)
social engineering
Domain 'gold365.blue' uses a high-frequency gambling/investment brand pattern ('gold' + '365') on a non-standard TLD (.blue). The page title is generic ('Index'), description and keywords meta tags are empty, and all content is loaded dynamically — consistent with an unlicensed online gambling or investment fraud platform designed to evade detection. (location: metadata.json, page.html:5,7,8)
hidden content
Page delivers no static visible content (page-text.txt is blank) while loading multiple large opaque JavaScript bundles (main.d5474a31a08bf2b433be.js, vendor.js, scripts.4220f4c72c81af4d0167.js, polyfills, runtime). All application logic, UI, and potentially credential-harvesting forms are hidden inside these unauditable compiled/minified bundles. (location: page.html:53-64)
credential harvesting
The site loads protobuf.min.js alongside socket.io.js, suggesting a real-time binary-protocol communication channel. Combined with a blank visible page and opaque JS bundles, this infrastructure is consistent with real-time credential or session token exfiltration to a remote server. (location: page.html:52,60)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/gold365.blueCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
gold365.blue currently scores 39/100 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.