context safety score
A score of 32/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
malicious redirect
Third-party ad script loaded from //middaymishapnotice.com/eab7a52a3f156e4103fa8f2698a32da8/invoke.js — a domain with no legitimate reputation, typical of malvertising networks that serve redirect chains, popunders, or drive-by download payloads to visitors. (location: page.html:478)
malicious redirect
Additional script from //middaymishapnotice.com/84/ee/b8/84eeb818a91916d4214c7790cbbff0ac.js loaded unconditionally at end of body. Same suspicious domain as the inline ad loader; dual injection increases confidence this is a malvertising operation delivering redirect or payload scripts. (location: page.html:1041)
malicious redirect
Script dynamically injected from https://Octo25.me/lib.js at runtime via an IIFE that appends a cache-busted script element to document.body. Octo25.me is a known push-notification / traffic-redirect monetisation domain used in malvertising campaigns. The obfuscated injection pattern (loop over existing scripts to avoid duplicate load) is characteristic of covert ad-injection toolkits. (location: page.html:1032-1039)
hidden content
A 1x1 transparent GIF placeholder () is used as the initial src for the LiveInternet tracking pixel, which is then replaced via JavaScript with a full tracking beacon URL that exfiltrates referrer, screen dimensions, colour depth, page URL, and page title to counter.yadro.ru — a Russian analytics/tracking service. The pixel is invisible to users (88x15, border:0, no alt text). (location: page.html:1044-1053)
hidden content
A div with id 'ie07b8-1a3766-9827' and class 'ie07b8-1a3766' is injected as a hidden container associated with the Octo25.me lib.js payload. This element has no visible content and serves as an anchor for covert ad or redirect injection. (location: page.html:1030)
malicious redirect
Canonical tag points to https://josporn.com/videos/ while the serving domain is josporn.club — a deliberate domain divergence that can be used to split SEO equity, mask the true serving domain from crawlers, or facilitate redirect chains between the .com and .club variants. (location: page.html:13)
social engineering
Page copy repeatedly invokes urgency and free-access framing ('Feel free to press play', 'updated daily with exclusive porn materials', 'at any time') to drive engagement and repeated visits, normalising third-party script execution and ad interaction in an adult context where users are less likely to scrutinise network activity. (location: page.html:1011)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/josporn.clubCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
josporn.club currently scores 32/100 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.