Is hanime1.me safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
42/100

context safety score

A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
7
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

malicious redirect

The 'stripchat-popunder' click handler on the play/info buttons performs a dual-destination redirect: it opens the intended video in a new tab while simultaneously redirecting the current page to an obfuscated affiliate/popunder URL at go.bluetrafficstream.com. This pattern exploits user intent to silently redirect the main window to a third-party ad network without disclosure. (location: page.html:5036-5039)

medium

malicious redirect

A Stripchat affiliate link using a long obfuscated tracking URL (go.mavrtracktor.com/smartpop/...) is embedded in the footer as a sponsor link. The URL contains hashed user-tracking parameters and routes through a third-party ad broker before reaching the destination, masking the final endpoint. (location: page.html:4988)

medium

hidden content

A third-party script from cdn.impactserving.com is injected dynamically at page load using an obfuscated self-executing IIFE that dynamically creates a script element and inserts it before the first existing script. This pattern is commonly used to load tracking/malvertising payloads in a way that bypasses static analysis. (location: page.html:5066)

medium

obfuscated code

A Cloudflare challenge-platform script is injected via a hidden 1x1 invisible iframe that writes inline script content to the iframe's document, then appends a script tag loading '/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js'. The use of a hidden iframe to inject script context is an obfuscation technique that obscures what code is being executed and in what origin context. (location: page.html:5067)

low

malicious redirect

Two distinct domain variants are used for the same affiliate link: 'l.erodalabs.com/s/0ZIRw4' (in the mobile nav, line 83) and 'l.erodatalabs.com/s/0ZIRw4' (in the desktop nav and footer, lines 130, 177, 4987). One of these domains may be a typosquat of the other, creating a risk that one domain resolves to a different destination than intended. (location: page.html:83, 130, 177, 4987)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/hanime1.me

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is hanime1.me safe for AI agents to use?

hanime1.me currently scores 42/100 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.