Is lok-lok.cc safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
49/100

context safety score

A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
100
content
40
graph
30

5 threat patterns detected

high

malicious redirect

The domain lok-lok.cc serves a nearly empty HTML shell (body contains only an empty #app div with no visible content) that loads all application logic, assets, and a tracking SDK from an external domain h5-static.aoneroom.com. The page title is 'Free Movies' and the favicon and JS/CSS are fully sourced from aoneroom.com, indicating the actual content and behavior is deferred to and controlled by a third-party domain entirely outside lok-lok.cc. This pattern is consistent with a domain used as a front/redirect layer to funnel traffic to a separate content platform while obscuring the true origin. (location: page.html:6-7, page.html:69-70)

medium

hidden content

The visible page text is completely empty (page-text.txt contains only whitespace), yet the page loads a full SPA framework and tracking SDK. All rendered content is injected dynamically via JavaScript from external sources, making static analysis and content inspection impossible and concealing the actual user-facing content from crawlers, scanners, and security tools. (location: page.html:74, page-text.txt)

medium

social engineering

The site presents itself as a 'Free Movies' platform (page title), which is a well-known lure used to attract users seeking pirated or unauthorized streaming content. This type of bait is commonly used to expose users to ads, drive ad-fraud traffic, harvest device/browser data, or redirect to malicious payloads. The .cc TLD combined with unknown domain age and WHOIS privacy redaction reinforces this risk profile. (location: page.html:24, metadata.json)

medium

hidden content

A third-party analytics/tracking SDK (athena-unify.js) is injected dynamically into the DOM via an inline script using an obfuscated self-executing function pattern. The tracker collects OS type (apple vs android), project ID, app version, and environment context, and queues events under 'ath_send'. This tracking occurs silently without any user notice or consent mechanism visible on the page. (location: page.html:33-51)

medium

obfuscated code

The inline script uses a self-invoking function with single-character parameter names (win, doc, sc, url, evt, elem, dd) to dynamically inject a remote script tag for the athena-unify.js SDK. This obfuscation pattern is used to evade static script-injection detection and makes it difficult to audit what the loaded SDK does at runtime. (location: page.html:33-51)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/lok-lok.cc

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is lok-lok.cc safe for AI agents to use?

lok-lok.cc currently scores 49/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.