Is launchdarkly.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

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

prompt injection

Hidden HTML element contains AI-targeting instructions

critical

obfuscated code

Heavily obfuscated JavaScript present in the page using hex-encoded variable names, rotating array shuffling, and encoded string lookups (_0x4f3c3b, _0x28ed, _0x3a95). The deobfuscated logic constructs URLs to an external domain (a1abbeef2a0f.o3n.io) and silently exfiltrates the current page URL and document.referrer via a tracking pixel (Image src). This code executes only on production (not staging/localhost), making it evasion-aware. (location: page.html:line 61 — inline <script> block, obfuscated section beginning with `var _0x4f3c3b=_0x28ed`)

critical

malicious redirect

The obfuscated script exfiltrates visitor data (current URL and referrer) to an external suspicious domain: a1abbeef2a0f.o3n.io via image beacon (both HTTP and HTTPS variants). The domain a1abbeef2a0f.o3n.io is not affiliated with LaunchDarkly and appears to be a data exfiltration endpoint. This is consistent with a supply-chain compromise or injected tracking script. (location: page.html:line 61 — references to 'https://a1abbeef2a0f.o3n.io/files/0fuqyu7agr8q60qwy053kyf7f/image.gif' and 'http://a1abbeef2a0f.o3n.io/files/0fuqyu7agr8q60qwy053kyf7f/image.gif')

high

hidden content

The obfuscated script is conditioned to run only when document.domain is NOT 'launchdarkly.com' and NOT 'www.launchdarkly.com' — meaning it deliberately avoids executing on the canonical domain while targeting visitors who reach the page through alternate means (e.g., scraped mirrors, proxies, or staging environments). This is a classic evasion technique to avoid detection by site owners while still targeting end users. (location: page.html:line 61 — condition: `if(document[_0x4f3c3b(0x133)]!=_0x4f3c3b(0x13b)&&document[_0x4f3c3b(0x133)]!=_0x4f3c3b(0x136))`)

low

social engineering

The page references a Netlify staging domain (launchdarkly-com.netlify.app) for geolocation lookups via synchronous XMLHttpRequest. While likely legitimate for geo-based consent management, the use of an unofficial subdomain for a synchronous blocking request could be abused to inject false geolocation responses that alter user consent or tracking opt-out behavior. (location: page.html:line 26 — `request.open('GET', 'https://launchdarkly-com.netlify.app/geoloc-result', false)`)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is launchdarkly.com safe for AI agents to use?

launchdarkly.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.