context safety score
A score of 35/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
exfiltration
JavaScript intercepts form submissions to exfiltrate data
js obfuscation
JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
obfuscated code
Hex-encoded string array used to construct domain-match logic and redirect URL at runtime. Variables named _0xb2dc contain hex-escaped strings (\x6C\x2E\x63, \x6F\x6D, etc.) that decode to 'l.c', 'om', '.m', 'ai' — assembled into 'mail.com' — followed by a location.href redirect if the current hostname does not match. While this appears to be a canonical www-redirect for the legitimate mail.com domain, the obfuscation pattern is identical to techniques used in malicious redirect injections and warrants scrutiny. (location: page.html line 115 / page-text.txt line 76)
obfuscated code
Large inline ad-service script uses multiple obfuscation layers: Caesar-cipher strings (function h(b,c) shifts char codes by c=-3), Base64-decoded method names via function K() (e.g. K('Z2V0Qm91bmRpbmdDbGllbnRSZWN0') decodes to 'getBoundingClientRect', K('c2V0VGltZW91dA==') to 'setTimeout'), and ROT-shifted event names (K('YWRuZGRuZC5pbml0') decodes to 'adndnd.init'). Dozens of image URLs are constructed at runtime by Caesar-decoding obfuscated strings with offset -3, making the actual ad-server destinations invisible to static analysis. This technique is a known vector for malicious redirect injection within ad networks. (location: page.html lines 685-684 (inline script block starting ''use strict';(function(n,F)'))
malicious redirect
The obfuscated ad-service script (Caesar-cipher offset -3) dynamically constructs and resolves image URLs pointing to i0.mail.com/mcom/... teaser slots. On click, function B() navigates the window using location.assign() or window.open() to URLs decoded at runtime from obfuscated strings. The actual destination URLs for ad clicks are never visible in static source — a pattern consistent with click-hijacking or malicious redirect payloads embedded in ad scripts. (location: page.html lines 686-688 (function B definition and call sites throughout ad script))
hidden content
A 1x1 tracking pixel is rendered via a <noscript> img tag with a zero-dimension image (width=1, height=1, class='trackingPixel') that fires a analytics beacon to //wa.mail.com. While common for legitimate analytics, this is a hidden content element invisible to users that exfiltrates page-view data including country, content IDs, and referral identifiers. (location: page.html line 681)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/mail.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
mail.com currently scores 35/100 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.