context safety score
A score of 60/100 indicates minor risk signals were detected. The entity may be legitimate but has characteristics that warrant attention.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
The domain 'inv-veri.chinatax.gov.cn' uses a subdomain pattern ('inv-veri') that mimics official invoice verification services of the Chinese tax authority (chinatax.gov.cn). However, TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), which is atypical for a legitimate government portal and strongly suggests this is not a genuine government domain or is being used in a spoofed/impersonation context. (location: domain: inv-veri.chinatax.gov.cn)
phishing
The site is completely inaccessible via HTTPS (TLS connected=false, cert_valid=false, no issuer, no cert type), yet presents itself as a government tax invoice verification portal. Legitimate government tax portals maintain valid TLS certificates. A non-functional or invalid TLS setup on a government-branded domain is a strong phishing indicator — users may be redirected to this domain or encounter it in campaigns targeting businesses that verify invoices with the Chinese tax authority. (location: metadata.json: tls block)
social engineering
The domain name 'inv-veri.chinatax.gov.cn' is constructed to appear as an official invoice verification ('inv-veri') subdomain of the Chinese national tax authority website. This naming convention is designed to instill trust in victims (e.g., accountants, finance staff) who regularly use legitimate chinatax.gov.cn services for invoice validation, making them more likely to interact with malicious content or submit credentials. (location: domain: inv-veri.chinatax.gov.cn)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/inv-veri.chinatax.gov.cnCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
inv-veri.chinatax.gov.cn currently scores 60/100 with a caution 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.