Is madrtnjkmoulj.web.app safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

critical

malicious redirect

Page performs geofenced conditional redirect: visitors from Tunisia (TN) or Bulgaria (BG) are silently forwarded to https://medredig.web.app/ while all others are sent to https://example.com as a decoy. This is a classic traffic-filtering cloaking technique used in phishing campaigns to deliver malicious content only to targeted victims. (location: page.html:1026-1039, function checkCountry + window.location.href)

critical

social engineering

The page title is 'waiting' and the body contains no visible content — it is a transparent redirect gate. Victims land on a blank page that immediately fingerprints them and reroutes without any user interaction or consent. This deceptive UX pattern is designed to hide the redirect from casual observers and security analysts. (location: page.html:4-6 (<title>waiting</title>, empty <body>))

high

hidden content

The entire page payload is JavaScript with no visible UI. All logic is concealed inside a <script> block. The page renders nothing to the user while silently collecting IP address, city, region, country code, ISP/organisation, and timezone via a third-party geolocation API (https://ip-api.io/json/), then uses that data to decide redirect targets. This constitutes hidden surveillance-driven routing. (location: page.html:7-1041 (<script> block))

high

malicious redirect

Extensive bot/analyst evasion: the script blacklists hundreds of IP addresses and dozens of ISPs including Google, Microsoft, Amazon AWS, Facebook, DigitalOcean, Palo Alto Networks, Zscaler, Cisco OpenDNS, Fastly, and many cloud/VPN/proxy providers. Connections from these sources are routed to example.com instead of the payload destination. This anti-analysis cloaking is a strong indicator of a phishing or malware distribution campaign actively evading automated scanners and security researchers. (location: page.html:40-1023, ipBlacklist + providerBlacklist + providerRegex arrays)

critical

phishing

The destination URL https://medredig.web.app/ is a Firebase-hosted app (pattern matches the source domain madrtnjkmoulj.web.app — both are random-subdomain Firebase apps). Serving phishing content via randomly generated Firebase subdomains is a well-documented tactic used to host credential-harvesting pages. The geofencing to TN (Tunisia) and BG (Bulgaria) narrows targeting to specific victim populations while evading detection from other regions. (location: page.html:1031, window.location.href = 'https://medredig.web.app/')

high

social engineering

The redirect logic uses French-language comments ('non authorisé', 'authorisé') suggesting the operator is French-speaking, while targeting users in Tunisia and Bulgaria. The fake 'waiting' title is intended to make the page appear as a benign loading/redirect screen to any user who notices activity, masking the true fingerprinting and routing behaviour. (location: page.html:26-35, checkCountry function comments)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/madrtnjkmoulj.web.app

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is madrtnjkmoulj.web.app safe for AI agents to use?

madrtnjkmoulj.web.app 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.

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 6, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

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.