Is mindworks-creative.com safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
46/100

context safety score

A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
17
graph
30

6 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

brand impersonation

The scanned URL is mindworks-creative.com, but the page fully renders the Playturbo/Mindworks brand (playturbo.com). The canonical link explicitly points to https://www.playturbo.com/ and all internal links reference playturbo.com. The domain mindworks-creative.com is not the legitimate home of this brand, indicating a domain that impersonates or mirrors the real Playturbo/Mindworks site. (location: page.html: <link rel='canonical' href='https://www.playturbo.com/'> and scanned domain mindworks-creative.com vs brand domain playturbo.com)

high

malicious redirect

The page served on mindworks-creative.com presents content canonically belonging to playturbo.com. All navigation, article, blog, and CTA links point to playturbo.com (e.g. https://www.playturbo.com/blog/...). Users or agents landing on the impersonator domain are silently redirected in context to the legitimate site's resources, masking the true origin and enabling traffic interception or session hijacking between the two domains. (location: page.html lines 58-64: multiple href attributes pointing to https://www.playturbo.com/blog/...)

medium

hidden content

An inline script dynamically creates and appends a tracking script element at runtime based on the hostname. For .cn domains it loads Baidu Analytics (hm.baidu.com); otherwise it loads Google Tag Manager. This conditional tracker injection is not declared in the static HTML head and evades standard static content scanning, enabling covert analytics or potential payload delivery depending on domain context. (location: page.html lines 73-82: inline script with dynamic script.src assignment based on window.location.host)

low

hidden content

The page loads an external script from /trackingIO_h5_sdk_2.0.0.js with no inline declaration of its purpose. The name 'trackingIO' suggests a tracking or telemetry SDK whose behavior cannot be verified from static analysis alone and is loaded unconditionally on all visitors. (location: page.html line 72: <script src='/trackingIO_h5_sdk_2.0.0.js'>)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/mindworks-creative.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is mindworks-creative.com safe for AI agents to use?

mindworks-creative.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.

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.