Is goojara.to safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
38/100

context safety score

A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
60
behavior
50
content
27
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation

high

obfuscated code

Hex-encoded obfuscated JavaScript using array-based string obfuscation (_0x9dc6, _0x401f, _0xc262) with an eval() call to execute dynamically constructed code. The obfuscated string array decodes to logic that checks window.location.hostname and redirects to ww1.goojara.to if the current hostname does not match, concealing redirect logic inside eval(). (location: page.html:11-12 and page.html:48)

medium

malicious redirect

Obfuscated JavaScript (decoded from hex-encoded array) implements a hostname check: if the current URL hostname is not 'ww1.goojara.to', it redirects window.location to 'https://ww1.goojara.to/'. This covert redirect is hidden inside an eval() of obfuscated code rather than being declared transparently. (location: page.html:48)

medium

brand impersonation

The page title references 'Goojara.ch' while the canonical URL, favicon, and branding all point to 'goojara.to' and 'ww1.goojara.to'. This cross-domain brand inconsistency (using .ch in the title but .to in all links/canonical) suggests domain hopping or impersonation across TLDs to evade blocklists while leveraging the same brand identity. (location: page.html:4 (title tag) vs page.html:7 (canonical link))

low

hidden content

A div with id 'res' uses a data-ins attribute ('klPGx0Qvmo') and its innerHTML is dynamically populated via XHR POST to /xmre.php, injecting server-controlled HTML directly into the DOM without sanitization (b.innerHTML = c.responseText). Content rendered in this element is not visible in the static page source. (location: page.html:17 and page.html:42-43)

medium

obfuscated code

Cookie management functions (_1set, _2get, _3chk) are implemented using a hex-encoded string array (_0x9dc6) where all string literals (including 'cookie', 'path=/', ';') are obfuscated. A specific cookie is set on load: _3chk('3c084291','552caec56e069e3f034ead'), which silently fingerprints or tracks visitors via a cookie tied to an opaque token. (location: page.html:11-12)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/goojara.to

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is goojara.to safe for AI agents to use?

goojara.to 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.