context safety score
A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
The domain 'mimecastprotect.com' impersonates Mimecast, a well-known cybersecurity and email security company. The domain appends 'protect' to the legitimate brand name 'mimecast', a common typosquatting/combosquatting technique used to deceive users and AI agents into trusting the domain as an official Mimecast property. The legitimate Mimecast domain is mimecast.com. (location: metadata.json: domain field / URL)
phishing
The domain 'mimecastprotect.com' is highly consistent with a phishing site targeting users of Mimecast's email security services. Users receiving links to this domain may believe they are visiting an official Mimecast portal, potentially leading to credential submission on a fraudulent site. The TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), which is atypical for a legitimate enterprise security vendor's site and consistent with a lapsed or non-existent phishing infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: domain, tls fields)
credential harvesting
Mimecast is primarily known for email security and provides user-facing login portals. A site impersonating 'mimecastprotect.com' is a high-probability credential harvesting vector, targeting corporate email credentials of Mimecast customers who may be redirected here via phishing emails or malicious links. (location: metadata.json: domain field / URL)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/mimecastprotect.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
mimecastprotect.com currently scores 46/100 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.
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.