context safety score
A score of 39/100 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 'impervasecuredns.net' impersonates Imperva, a well-known cybersecurity company. The domain appends 'secureddns' to the Imperva brand name to appear as a legitimate Imperva security service, likely to deceive users or AI agents into trusting it as an official Imperva infrastructure endpoint. (location: domain: impervasecuredns.net)
phishing
The domain combines a known security vendor brand (Imperva) with a security-sounding suffix ('secureddns') — a classic phishing domain construction pattern designed to mislead users into believing they are interacting with legitimate Imperva DNS security infrastructure. (location: domain: impervasecuredns.net)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for a domain claiming to be a DNS security service. A legitimate DNS security provider would have valid TLS. This is consistent with a domain used as a redirect hop or C2 endpoint where TLS is not configured for end-user browsing, suggesting the domain may serve a non-browser-facing malicious purpose such as DNS hijacking or traffic redirection. (location: metadata.json: tls fields)
hidden content
The page returned empty HTML and empty visible text content despite the domain being resolvable and fetchable enough to be scanned. A blank page with a brand-impersonating domain name is a strong indicator of a cloaked or cloaking site that serves different content to automated scanners versus targeted victims or specific user agents. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/impervasecuredns.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
impervasecuredns.net currently scores 39/100 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.