context safety score
A score of 32/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
brand impersonation
The page at highperformanceformat.com renders a near-perfect replica of Google's CAPTCHA/unusual-traffic interstitial, including Google branding, Google's Terms of Service links, Google support links, and language identical to genuine Google robot-detection pages. The page title is literally set to 'https://google.com/' to reinforce the illusion that the user is on Google's infrastructure. (location: page.html:3 — <title>https://google.com/</title>; page.html:22-28 — 'About this page' block mimicking Google's CAPTCHA interstitial)
phishing
A third-party domain (highperformanceformat.com) is impersonating a Google CAPTCHA verification page. The form posts to 'index' on the same domain while including a hidden 'continue' parameter pointing to https://google.com/. This is a classic phishing interstitial: users believe they are completing a Google security check, but are actually submitting data to the attacker-controlled domain. (location: page.html:7,17 — <form action='index' method='post'> with hidden input continue=https://google.com/)
malicious redirect
The form contains a hidden field named 'continue' with value 'https://google.com/'. After form submission to the attacker's server, the user is likely redirected to Google to complete the illusion of a legitimate CAPTCHA flow, concealing data exfiltration. The 'q' hidden field contains a Base64/encoded token that is submitted to the attacker's backend. (location: page.html:17 — <input type='hidden' name='continue' value='https://google.com/'>)
credential harvesting
The form submission (POST to 'index') collects a reCAPTCHA enterprise response token and a hidden encoded 'q' parameter. The reCAPTCHA site key (6LfwuyUTAAAAAOAmoS0fdqijC2PbbdH4kjq62Y1b) is registered to the attacker, not Google. Submitting the CAPTCHA sends the verified token plus opaque encoded data to the attacker's server, enabling session or identity harvesting. (location: page.html:15,17 — reCAPTCHA enterprise widget with attacker-controlled sitekey; hidden input name='q')
social engineering
The page uses authoritative, fear-inducing language ('Our systems have detected unusual traffic', 'violation of the Terms of Service', 'malicious software') copied verbatim from genuine Google interstitials to pressure users into completing the CAPTCHA without scrutiny. The display of a real-looking IP address and timestamp adds false legitimacy and urgency. (location: page.html:24-28 — infoDiv block; page-text.txt:21-27)
prompt injection
The page title is set to the string 'https://google.com/' rather than a descriptive title. An AI agent browsing or summarizing this page may interpret the title as the actual URL origin, causing the agent to incorrectly attribute the page's content and actions to Google. This is a prompt injection vector targeting AI agents that rely on page metadata to determine trust context. (location: page.html:3 — <title>https://google.com/</title>)
hidden content
An 'infoDiv' block is rendered with inline style 'display:none' by default, hiding extended social-engineering text from casual inspection. This text is only revealed on user interaction, reducing the chance of automated scanners flagging the full deceptive content. (location: page.html:26 — <div id='infoDiv' style='display:none;...'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/highperformanceformat.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
highperformanceformat.com currently scores 32/100 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.