Is grouponaffiliate.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
36/100

context safety score

A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
30
content
7
graph
74

5 threat patterns detected

high

hidden instruction

high hidden content ratio detected in DOM

high

brand impersonation

The domain grouponaffiliate.com serves a full replica of the official Groupon homepage, including the registered trademark 'Groupon®' in the page title, official Groupon logos, favicons sourced from grouponcdn.com, and structured data (schema.org Organization) claiming to be Groupon at www.groupon.com. The serving domain is not groupon.com, constituting unauthorized brand impersonation. (location: page.html:1 - <title>Groupon® Official Site - Find Local Deals Near You</title>, <link rel='canonical' href='https://www.groupon.com'>)

high

malicious redirect

The page is hosted on grouponaffiliate.com but the canonical URL, all alternate hreflang links, structured data URLs, and internal navigation all point to www.groupon.com. A redirect (1 detected in pre-scan signals) leads visitors from the affiliate domain to the official Groupon site, consistent with an affiliate cookie-stuffing or session-hijacking setup designed to intercept referral credit or user sessions. (location: page.html:1 - <link rel='canonical' href='https://www.groupon.com'>, metadata.json - redirects: 1)

medium

hidden content

The pre-scan flagged a hidden content ratio of 0.52 (52%), which is unusually high. The HTML confirms multiple elements with class 'hidden' and inline style 'display:none' or 'hidden' attributes (e.g., <div style='height:121px' class='hidden'>, multiple <div hidden id='S:N'> streaming placeholder nodes). While some are React/Next.js streaming SSR artefacts, the overall ratio is anomalous and warrants review for concealed content not visible to users. (location: page.html:25 - <div style='height:121px' class='hidden'></div>; page.html:26 - multiple <div hidden id='S:N'> elements)

low

hidden content

The page-hidden.txt file contains 40 lines of HTML comment pairs using React streaming boundary markers ($? and /$). These are legitimate Next.js/React SSR streaming suspension boundary comments and do not contain injected content, but their volume (20 comment pairs) contributes to the elevated hidden content ratio flagged in pre-scan. (location: page-hidden.txt:1-40 - React streaming boundary comments <!--$?--><!--/$-->)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/grouponaffiliate.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is grouponaffiliate.com safe for AI agents to use?

grouponaffiliate.com currently scores 36/100 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 26, 2026

Verdict Scale

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

Trust Graph

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.