context safety score
A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
social engineering
Domain ideacom.ws uses a .ws (Western Samoa) ccTLD, which is commonly abused by threat actors to mimic legitimate .com domains (ideacom.ws vs ideacom.com). This is a classic typosquatting/TLD substitution technique targeting users and automated agents that may resolve the domain as a trusted entity. (location: metadata.json: domain=ideacom.ws)
phishing
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A site that cannot establish a valid TLS session is either serving content over plain HTTP or has a severely misconfigured/fraudulent certificate, both of which are strongly associated with phishing infrastructure and credential harvesting operations. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
The hosting provider is flagged as 'Bulletproof' — a class of hosting known for ignoring abuse complaints and specifically favored by credential harvesting, phishing, and malware distribution operations. Bulletproof hosting is a strong indicator of malicious infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: hosting.reputation=Bulletproof)
phishing
WHOIS privacy redaction status is unknown and registrar reputation penalty is 0, but combined with bulletproof hosting and TLS failure, the domain exhibits a multi-signal risk profile consistent with a newly weaponized or dormant-then-activated phishing domain. Domain age of 11191 days (~30 years) is anomalous and may indicate a hijacked or expired domain re-registered for malicious purposes. (location: metadata.json: whois.domain_age_days=11191, whois.privacy_redacted=null)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ideacom.wsCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ideacom.ws currently scores 43/100 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.