context safety score
A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
The domain lk21official.cc failed TLS connection entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false), indicating the site may be down, parked, or serving content via an insecure channel. The .cc TLD combined with 'official' in the domain name is a common pattern for impersonation or redirect-chain infrastructure used to funnel users through ad networks or malicious redirects before reaching a payload. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, domain=lk21official.cc)
brand impersonation
The domain 'lk21official.cc' uses the word 'official' to falsely imply legitimacy or affiliation with a known brand (LK21, a well-known piracy/streaming site). This is a classic brand impersonation pattern where threat actors register lookalike domains with 'official' appended to deceive users into trusting the site, commonly used to harvest credentials or serve malware. (location: metadata.json: domain=lk21official.cc)
phishing
The combination of a .cc TLD domain with 'official' branding, failed TLS, unknown domain age, redacted WHOIS, and unknown hosting reputation are collectively strong indicators of a phishing infrastructure site. The absence of page content despite a reachable URL structure suggests the page may only serve content conditionally (e.g., based on referrer, geolocation, or user-agent), a tactic used to evade automated scanners while delivering phishing pages to real users. (location: metadata.json, .brin-context.md: domain=lk21official.cc, tls.connected=false, whois.domain_age_days=null)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/lk21official.ccCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
lk21official.cc 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.
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.