context safety score
A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
credential harvesting
The page presents a corporate email login form (username + password) on the domain icoremail.net, which is not the canonical Coremail vendor domain (coremail.cn). The form action is empty (action=""), meaning credentials are submitted back to this third-party domain rather than to the official coremail.cn infrastructure. Combined with the domain mismatch, this pattern is consistent with a credential-harvesting page impersonating the legitimate Coremail enterprise mail portal. (location: page.html:238 — <form id="loginForm" method="post" action="">)
brand impersonation
The page title reads 'Coremail论客企业邮箱登录' and the UI branding (logo, authentication badges, copyright 'Coremail 版权所有 © 2002-2019') fully impersonates the legitimate Coremail (coremail.cn) corporate email product, yet the page is hosted on icoremail.net — a domain that is not owned or operated by the Coremail vendor. The 'i' prefix is a common typosquatting/lookalike-domain tactic. (location: page.html:21 (title), page.html:206 (Logo onclick coremail.cn), page.html:385 (copyright))
phishing
icoremail.net is a lookalike domain for the legitimate Coremail service (coremail.cn). The page faithfully replicates the Coremail enterprise webmail login interface — including language selector, SSL toggle, 'remember username' option, and official certification badge images — to deceive users into entering their corporate email credentials on an attacker-controlled host. (location: page.html — full page, metadata.json:domain=icoremail.net)
malicious redirect
Mobile user-agent detection silently redirects visitors to pad.jsp or phone.jsp on the same phishing domain without user interaction, ensuring mobile users are also served the credential-harvesting interface rather than escaping to a legitimate site. (location: page.html:45-53 — UA detect script block)
social engineering
Clickable authentication badge images (authentication01.png, authentication02.png, authentication03.png) open coremail.cn certification pages via window.open(), creating a false sense of legitimacy by associating the phishing page with real vendor trust signals. The 'more features' button (更多功能) and background click area redirect to http://www.lunkr.cn, a legitimate Coremail IM product, further reinforcing the illusion of authenticity. (location: page.html:325-332 (auth badges), page.html:227 (bgclick href lunkr.cn), page.html:228 (更多功能 button))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/icoremail.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
icoremail.net 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.
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.