context safety score
A score of 65/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
hidden content
1 hidden or tiny iframe elements detected
brand impersonation
The page is hosted on gruppenveranstalter.de but prominently displays Maritim Hotels branding, logo (maritim-hotelgesellschaft-mbh.png), and title 'Maritim - Login'. The domain gruppenveranstalter.de is not maritim.com or maritim.de. The legitimate Maritim website (maritim.de) is linked as an external site, suggesting this portal may be a third-party impersonating or spoofing the Maritim brand to harvest credentials from group event organizers. (location: page.html:100-101, page.html:4, metadata.json:domain)
credential harvesting
A login form collecting E-Mail/Login Name and password fields is present on a non-primary domain (gruppenveranstalter.de) while impersonating the Maritim Hotels brand. The form posts to '#' (action='#') which is unusual and may indicate client-side interception or obfuscated submission handling. Combined with brand impersonation, this presents a credential harvesting risk. (location: page.html:136-150)
hidden content
A hidden iframe (id='mzag_session_iframe') with zero dimensions (width=0, height=0) is embedded and triggered via setTimeout to load '/mzag/preserve_session' after 600 seconds. While likely a session keepalive mechanism, it is a hidden iframe that silently makes requests without user awareness. (location: page.html:165-168)
hidden content
A Google Tag Manager noscript iframe is present with display:none and visibility:hidden, loading content from googletagmanager.com. This is a standard GTM pattern but constitutes hidden iframe content (flagged as hidden_iframe_count:1 in tier 2 signals). (location: page.html:93-94)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/gruppenveranstalter.deCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
gruppenveranstalter.de currently scores 65/100 with a caution 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.