Is machotube.tv safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
34/100

context safety score

A score of 34/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
80
content
11
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

malicious redirect

Page loads a pop-under/tab-under ad script from trustpielote.com (cdn.trustpielote.com/rdr/renderer.js) with explicit config: tabUnder=true, triggerMethod=2, disableChrome=true, frequency=2, period=1. This silently opens unsolicited background tabs on user interaction (clicks on gallery/category/pornstar links), routing users to unknown third-party destinations without consent. (location: page.html:9925-9939)

medium

malicious redirect

Navigation menu links (AI JERK OFF, Live Sex, HD Porn) point to trustpielote.com/resource?zones=300/301/302 — a known ad-network redirect/traffic broker domain. Destination URLs are not disclosed to the user and may route to further redirect chains. (location: page.html:211-222)

medium

malicious redirect

Navigation 'VOD' menu link points to fhgte.com/gay?utm_campaign=ai.CxY — an opaque third-party traffic broker domain with a campaign tag. Final destination is not disclosed and the domain has no clear legitimate identity. (location: page.html:223-225)

medium

social engineering

The ad label 'AI JERK OFF' in the navigation bar exploits AI-themed branding to lure clicks toward a third-party ad network redirect (trustpielote.com/resource?zones=300). The rainbow-flag emoji and AI framing are designed to attract engagement and disguise it as site content rather than an ad link. (location: page.html:212)

low

hidden content

Third-party ad script cdn26121759.ahacdn.me/native4/main.js is injected once per video thumbnail block (11+ times across the page). This CDN subdomain is numeric and obfuscated, typical of ad-fraud or malvertising infrastructure dynamically injecting content not visible in the static HTML. (location: page.html:2495,3154,3813,4463,5116,5766,6419,7066,7731,8393,9058,9711)

low

hidden content

An ad zone placeholder (data-hp-id='117') combined with the hpPpConfig pop-under configuration fires on clicks to gallery, category, and pornstar stat links (.js-gallery-stats, .js-category-stats, .js-pornstar-stats) — meaning the pop-under triggers on nearly every content interaction without visible user warning. (location: page.html:9925-9935)

low

hidden content

stats.hprofits.com/advertisement.min.js is loaded in the document <head> as a first-party-appearing script but is actually a third-party ad-network tracking and advertisement loader from an external domain, executing before page content renders. (location: page.html:36)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/machotube.tv

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is machotube.tv safe for AI agents to use?

machotube.tv currently scores 34/100 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.