Is invisionapp.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
39/100

context safety score

A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
7
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

hidden content

1 hidden or tiny iframe elements detected

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from invisionapp.com but presents itself entirely as Miro (title: 'AI Innovation Workspace | Miro', canonical URL: https://miro.com/, og:url: https://miro.com/). The page content, branding, navigation, and CTAs are fully Miro-branded, while the serving domain is invisionapp.com — a well-known design tool brand unrelated to Miro. This constitutes impersonation of Miro on a different domain. (location: page.html:29, page.html:38, page.html:827 (canonical href))

high

malicious redirect

The HTML attribute data-redirect-timezone="1" on the <html> element combined with Framer's URL parameter propagation script (which appends query parameters from the current URL to all internal links, explicitly bypassing bot/crawler detection via navigator.webdriver and user-agent checks) creates a mechanism that preserves and forwards URL parameters to downstream links while hiding this behavior from automated scanners. The script explicitly checks for bots and disables parameter forwarding for them, suggesting intentional evasion. (location: page.html:4, page.html:955)

medium

hidden content

The page contains a zero-dimension hidden GTM iframe (<iframe src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-N5MCLT8' height='0' width='0' style='display:none;visibility:hidden'>) injected in the noscript body, which is standard GTM practice but is being deployed on a domain (invisionapp.com) that is impersonating another brand (Miro), making this tracking invisible and potentially harvesting visitor data under false brand pretenses. (location: page.html:1127, page-text.txt:218)

medium

social engineering

The page hosted on invisionapp.com (a recognized InVision product domain) presents Miro branding with high-urgency CTAs ('SAVE YOUR SPOT', 'Sign up free', 'Get from brainstorm to breakthrough') and event registration prompts ('Canvas 26 registration is open'), creating false legitimacy by exploiting the trust associated with both the InVision domain and Miro brand to drive user signups or registrations. (location: page-text.txt:46)

low

prompt injection

The page title and meta description are crafted as 'AI Innovation Workspace | Miro' with content about AI workflows and AI-powered platforms. While this may be legitimate marketing copy, if this page is being indexed or processed by AI agents conducting research on InVision (invisionapp.com), the Miro-branded content could mislead AI agents into associating invisionapp.com with Miro's offerings, constituting indirect prompt injection through SEO-targeted metadata on a mismatched domain. (location: page.html:29-30, page.html:38-39)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/invisionapp.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is invisionapp.com safe for AI agents to use?

invisionapp.com 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.