Is kinogo.inc safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
36/100

context safety score

A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
55
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

credential harvesting

credential form posts to an off-domain endpoint (may be legitimate SSO/OAuth)

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

malicious redirect

The site is served from kinogo.inc but all canonical links, navigation, content links, and branding point to kinogo.my. The kinogo.inc domain acts as a redirect/mirror/clone that silently forwards users to a different domain (kinogo.my). Users browsing to kinogo.inc receive a full page that references kinogo.my as the authoritative site, including a rel=canonical tag pointing to https://kinogo.my/. This domain substitution is a common technique used by piracy mirrors and phishing infrastructure to capture traffic under alternate TLDs while funneling users to the actual content site. (location: page.html:11 (rel=canonical href='https://kinogo.my/'), metadata.json (domain: kinogo.inc vs. all links pointing to kinogo.my))

high

brand impersonation

The site at kinogo.inc impersonates the established Russian streaming brand 'Киного' (Kinogo), which operates from kinogo.my. The page title, meta tags, logo SVG, and all branding reference 'Киного - Kinogo.my', while the actual serving domain is kinogo.inc — a different TLD. This is a classic brand-squatting/impersonation pattern where an alternate domain mimics a known brand to capture its user base, potentially to serve malicious ads or harvest credentials. (location: page.html:6 (title tag), page.html:11 (canonical), page.html:1297 (logo link), metadata.json (domain: kinogo.inc))

medium

hidden content

An ad injection div with id 'trickorlife' is present at the top of the body with no visible content. The name 'trickorlife' is atypical for legitimate ad placements and suggests potentially deceptive ad injection. Multiple anonymous <ins> ad tags with opaque data-key hashes (e.g., '62c397b6053b71bd0e8338e83a47b97f', '2ef87709fa0c3ad431f4872baf039e00', '24ce9959a706f69d84cb49a98a762ae5', '029e83ea4e38c8557fa3e26c890b277d') load third-party ad content from srv224.com and cdn77.srv224.com with no transparency about the ad network or content served. (location: page.html:75 (div#trickorlife), page.html:103, 257, 421, 894 (<ins> ad tags))

medium

malicious redirect

An external script is loaded asynchronously from https://cdn77.srv224.com/ee314b03.js — a third-party CDN domain associated with ad networks that have been linked to malvertising and forced redirect campaigns. The obfuscated filename (ee314b03.js) and the CDN domain srv224.com are characteristic of ad-tech infrastructure that can inject pop-unders, redirect users to scam pages, or serve drive-by malware, especially on piracy streaming sites. (location: page.html:1508 (<script async src='https://cdn77.srv224.com/ee314b03.js'>))

medium

hidden content

A CSS rule sets an epom pushdown ad div (div[id*=epom-pushdown]) to cover the full page with position:absolute, height:100%, width:100%, and z-index:1, while placing it behind legitimate content (z-index:2). This pattern is used to create invisible full-page clickjacking overlays: any click anywhere on the page that misses a foreground element lands on the ad div, generating fraudulent ad clicks or triggering redirect pop-ups. The use of the 'cursor:pointer' property on this full-page overlay reinforces the clickjacking intent. (location: page.html:44-56 (CSS for body > div[id*=epom-pushdown]))

low

social engineering

The site presents itself as a free, legitimate streaming service with claims of 'no hidden payments', 'data security', and 'millions of viewers', while operating under a suspicious alternate domain (kinogo.inc instead of the canonical kinogo.my) and distributing copyrighted content without authorization. These reassurance statements are typical social engineering tactics used on piracy sites to reduce user suspicion and encourage account registration and continued engagement. (location: page.html:1267-1275 (footer text), page-text.txt:1198-1206)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/kinogo.inc

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is kinogo.inc safe for AI agents to use?

kinogo.inc currently scores 36/100 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.