Is lightpay.in safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
5
behavior
100
content
40
graph
30

5 threat patterns detected

high

tls connection failed

Could not establish TLS connection

high

phishing

Domain lightpay.in uses a payment-themed name ('pay') with a non-standard TLD (.in) — a common phishing pattern to impersonate legitimate payment services. TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false), meaning the site cannot be verified as legitimate, which is a strong indicator of a fraudulent or abandoned phishing infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false; domain: lightpay.in)

high

credential harvesting

The combination of a payment-branded domain (lightpay.in) with completely broken TLS (no valid certificate, no SAN match, unknown issuer) is consistent with credential harvesting infrastructure. Legitimate payment platforms always maintain valid TLS. The inability to fetch page content may indicate the site is gated, geo-restricted, or bot-detection-evasive — tactics used to serve harvesting forms only to targeted victims. (location: metadata.json: tls fields all null/false; page.html and page-text.txt: empty (no content retrieved))

medium

brand impersonation

The domain 'lightpay.in' is structured to evoke a branded payment service (e.g., impersonating LightPay, Lightning Network pay services, or generic payment platforms). The .in TLD is frequently used in brand-impersonation domains targeting users who mistype or are redirected from legitimate .com/.net payment services. (location: metadata.json: domain=lightpay.in)

medium

hidden content

Page content is entirely absent (page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt are all empty), yet the domain resolves and was scannable. This suggests the site may be actively hiding content from crawlers/scanners while serving malicious content to real browser sessions — a known evasion technique used in phishing and malware distribution campaigns. (location: page.html: empty; page-text.txt: empty; page-hidden.txt: empty)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/lightpay.in

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is lightpay.in safe for AI agents to use?

lightpay.in currently scores 40/100 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.