context safety score
A score of 27/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
hidden instruction
high hidden content ratio detected in DOM
brand impersonation
The domain googlemail.com is serving a full replica of the Google accounts sign-in page (accounts.google.com). The page uses Google branding, logos, UI components, and identical Google Sign-In flow, but the base URL is googlemail.com — not accounts.google.com. While googlemail.com is a legitimate Google-owned alias for Gmail, the <base href> is set to https://accounts.google.com/v3/signin/ which could mask the true origin from users and AI agents inspecting visible content. (location: page.html line 1: <base href="https://accounts.google.com/v3/signin/">)
credential harvesting
The page presents a fully functional Google account sign-in form requesting email/phone credentials. The form submits to accounts.google.com endpoints via the <base href> redirect, but the page is being served from googlemail.com. This pattern — cloning a credential-collection page on a different domain — is a classic credential harvesting vector even if googlemail.com is technically Google-owned. Any agent or user who checks the top-level domain (googlemail.com) rather than the base href may not realize credentials are being collected by what appears to be a non-canonical Google domain. (location: page.html: sign-in form with email/phone input field and Next button)
phishing
googlemail.com redirects users through a complete Google Sign-In UI while the actual page origin is googlemail.com rather than accounts.google.com. The <base href> is set to accounts.google.com to make all relative resource/form action URLs resolve correctly, creating a deceptive dual-origin presentation. Although googlemail.com is owned by Google, this pattern is structurally identical to phishing techniques that clone legitimate sign-in pages on lookalike domains. (location: page.html line 1: <base href="https://accounts.google.com/v3/signin/"> combined with serving domain googlemail.com)
obfuscated code
The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using control-flow flattening (while loops with numeric state machines, e.g. p=69;while(p!=20)), meaningless variable names, and complex arithmetic operations to obscure program logic. This makes static analysis of the page's behavior extremely difficult and could conceal malicious logic from automated scanners. (location: page.html lines 16, page-text.txt lines 2-3: obfuscated JS function G/J/F with state machine control flow)
hidden content
A sourceMappingURL containing a base64-encoded JSON source map is embedded inline in the page-text.txt visible text content. This is not inherently malicious but can be used to embed hidden data in the rendered text layer that AI agents extract as visible page content. (location: page-text.txt line 1: //# sourceMappingURL=data:application/json;charset=utf-8;base64,eyJ2ZXJzaW9uIjogMywi...)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/googlemail.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
googlemail.com currently scores 27/100 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.