Is lol49.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
26/100

context safety score

A score of 26/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
60
behavior
50
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

obfuscated code

Large obfuscated JavaScript block at page load using decodeURI with percent-encoded string, character-code shifting cipher (charCodeAt offset by position mod 95), and split index arrays to reconstruct strings at runtime. The decoded payload assembles URLs and browser fingerprinting logic invisible in plain source review. Loaded with data-cfasync='false' to bypass Cloudflare scanning. (location: page.html:60 — inline <script data-cfasync='false'>!function(){"use strict";for(var n=decodeURI("wd%60andp%5E..."))

high

malicious redirect

External script loaded from third-party domain 'driverhugoverblown.com' (//driverhugoverblown.com/on.js) — a known ad-fraud and malvertising network domain. The script is loaded asynchronously with data-cfasync='false' and has onerror/onload callbacks (obgow(15)) tied to the obfuscated code above, indicating coordinated redirect or ad-injection behavior. (location: page.html:61 — <script data-cfasync='false' data-clocid='2079706' async src='//driverhugoverblown.com/on.js')

high

obfuscated code

Second heavily obfuscated JavaScript block in the page footer using hexadecimal opcode-style variable names (R, K, Xo, 0xac, 0x90, etc.), a self-invoking shuffle loop (while(!![]){...O['push'](O['shift']())}), and string-building via concatenated fragments to reconstruct API endpoint paths at runtime (assembles 'adManager', 'proxy-secret', etc.). This is a classic anti-analysis packer pattern used to hide ad-injection, tracking, or redirect payloads. (location: page.html:1392 — <script data-cfasync='false'>function R(K,h){var O=X();...)

medium

brand impersonation

The page is served from domain lol49.com but presents itself as 'MasaLoL.Com' in the title and header, with og:site_name 'MasaFun.Net', og:url pointing to masafun.com, and footer Home link redirecting to masafun.com. The canonical URL is lol49.com but all branding references multiple distinct domains (MasaLoL.Com, MasaFun.Net, masafun.com, Masahub.com in meta author). This cross-domain brand masquerading obscures the true operator identity. (location: page.html:14,24,85,89,98 — <title>, og:site_name, og:url, Identifier-URL, author meta)

medium

hidden content

Multiple ad-network site-verification tokens embedded in meta tags for Clickaine (adult ad network known for aggressive pop-unders), DaoPush (push notification ad network), ExoClick, HilltopAds, and MAValidation. These verification tags confirm the site is enrolled in multiple ad networks simultaneously, enabling layered ad injection, pop-under redirects, and push notification subscription harvesting from visitors. (location: page.html:69-79 — clickaine-site-verification, daopush-site-verification, exoclick-site-verification, hilltopads-site-verification, maValidation meta tags)

medium

social engineering

Meta tags inject fake SEO signals: 'pagerank™' content='10', 'serps' content='1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, ATF', 'seoconsultantsdirectory' content='5'. These are fabricated authority signals with no legitimate SEO meaning, used to manipulate automated crawlers and AI agents into treating the site as high-authority. Combined with multiple Google site-verification tokens (6 distinct values), this indicates coordinated search-engine manipulation. (location: page.html:95-97 — <meta content='10' name='pagerank™'/>, <meta content='1, 2, 3, 10...' name='serps'/>, <meta content='5' name='seoconsultantsdirectory'/>)

low

prompt injection

The page title declared in the first <title> tag is 'MasaLoL.Com - Watch free new porn videos' but a second duplicate <title>MasaLoL.Com</title> appears at line 63 and again at line 111 and 132. The og:url and Identifier-URL meta tags point to masafun.com while the canonical points to lol49.com. This metadata inconsistency can confuse AI agent summarization, content classifiers, and URL-reputation systems into misidentifying the true domain or content category of the page. (location: page.html:14,63,111,132 — duplicate <title> tags; page.html:85,89 — og:url and Identifier-URL mismatch with canonical)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/lol49.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is lol49.com safe for AI agents to use?

lol49.com currently scores 26/100 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.