context safety score
A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) for the domain ifxnetworks.co, indicating the site may be non-functional, taken down after malicious use, or actively blocking automated analysis — a common evasion tactic used by phishing and credential-harvesting sites. (location: metadata.json: tls object)
phishing
The domain ifxnetworks.co uses a .co TLD which is a common typosquatting and brand-impersonation vector targeting IFX Networks, a well-known Latin American internet/network services provider. The domain age is unknown and WHOIS privacy status is undetermined, consistent with a newly registered lookalike domain used for phishing campaigns. (location: metadata.json: domain, .brin-context.md)
brand impersonation
The domain 'ifxnetworks.co' closely mimics 'ifxnetworks.com', the legitimate IFX Networks brand. IFX Networks suffered a major ransomware attack in 2023 making it a high-value impersonation target. The .co TLD substitution for .com is a classic brand impersonation technique used to deceive users and automated agents. (location: metadata.json: domain ifxnetworks.co)
hidden content
Page HTML, visible text, and hidden content are all empty despite the domain resolving to a host with MajorCloud hosting reputation. An empty page returned to scanners while potentially serving content to real browsers (cloaking) is a known evasion technique used by phishing infrastructure. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt — all empty files)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ifxnetworks.coCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ifxnetworks.co currently scores 45/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.