context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
The domain hsbc.net impersonates HSBC, a major global bank whose legitimate domain is hsbc.com. Use of the .net TLD to mimic a well-known financial brand is a classic typosquatting and brand impersonation pattern used to deceive users and AI agents into trusting the domain. (location: domain: hsbc.net)
phishing
hsbc.net failed TLS connection entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A site impersonating a major bank with no valid TLS certificate is a strong indicator of a phishing infrastructure, potentially serving credential-harvesting pages to victims while blocking automated scanners. (location: metadata.json: tls fields)
credential harvesting
The combination of HSBC brand impersonation via hsbc.net and failed TLS strongly suggests this domain is positioned to harvest banking credentials from users who mistype or are directed to hsbc.net instead of hsbc.com. Empty page content may indicate the malicious payload is conditionally served only to real browser sessions. (location: domain: hsbc.net, metadata.json)
hidden content
All page content files (page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt) are completely empty despite the domain being reachable enough for a WHOIS lookup. This may indicate the site uses cloaking techniques, serving content only to human browser sessions while returning empty responses to crawlers and security scanners. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/hsbc.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
hsbc.net 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.
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.