Is kcrw.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

brand impersonation

The page at kcrw.com renders a 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' interstitial with Vercel branding and spinner UI, but kcrw.com is not a Vercel-hosted property. This impersonates Vercel's legitimate bot-challenge page to lend false legitimacy to an intercepted or hijacked response. (location: page.html: <title>Vercel Security Checkpoint</title>, footer text)

high

obfuscated code

The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using numeric string arrays, shuffled lookup tables, self-invoking anti-tamper loops, and encoded function names (e.g., parseInt(c(167))/1 pattern, rotating array bootstrappers). This obfuscation pattern is characteristic of browser fingerprinting, bot-detection bypass, or malicious payload delivery scripts that conceal their true behavior. (location: page.html: <script type="module"> block, lines 2)

high

malicious redirect

The page is a JavaScript-gated interstitial served at kcrw.com that requires JS execution to proceed. The obfuscated script dynamically controls navigation and DOM manipulation (getElementById, style setProperty, removeElement). This pattern is used to conditionally redirect visitors — bots/crawlers see one thing, humans are silently redirected after JS fingerprinting completes. (location: page.html: obfuscated script block; functions b(), T(), P() manipulating DOM and controlling display flow)

medium

social engineering

The interstitial displays 'We're verifying your browser' and 'Enable JavaScript to continue' — standard trust-inducing language that pressures users into enabling JS or proceeding through a checkpoint they did not expect on a legitimate news/radio site (kcrw.com). This lowers user suspicion while the obfuscated script executes. (location: page.html: <p id="header-text">We're verifying your browser</p>; page-text.txt: 'Enable JavaScript to continue')

medium

prompt injection

The page-text.txt output embeds raw HTML markup mixed into the visible text content, including full SVG and div structures. If an AI agent is scraping this page for content summarization or action, injected markup could alter the agent's parsed representation of the page or smuggle instructions within apparent text content. (location: page-text.txt: embedded raw HTML/SVG within visible text output)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is kcrw.com safe for AI agents to use?

kcrw.com currently scores 43/100 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.