Is missav.live safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
32/100

context safety score

A score of 32/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
30
content
0
graph
30

12 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses eval() with String.fromCharCode — common obfuscation

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript appears to use a common packer pattern (p,a,c,k,e,d)

medium

credential harvesting

The site collects user email, password, and account credentials through login/register/change-password forms that POST to missav.live API endpoints. While this is a self-hosted login form, the domain uses a .live TLD with no visible ownership information, and collects credentials with no observable security/privacy policy linked at the point of collection. (location: page.html:456-534 (login/register/forget/changePassword functions))

high

malicious redirect

Multiple outbound links in the 'More sites' navigation menu use bit.ly shortlinks (obfuscated destinations) pointing to external adult platforms. The actual destination URLs are hidden behind URL shorteners (bit.ly/4gRZIHs, bit.ly/4bQtWu8, bit.ly/3HXTrNA, bit.ly/4rdPxBm, bit.ly/4tO0bAC, bit.ly/4apXHPS, bit.ly/46CgsyZ, bit.ly/4o2Ad8Q, bit.ly/3JkoZxK), preventing users or agents from knowing where they will be redirected. (location: page.html:1437-1507)

high

obfuscated code

A deeply nested eval-based JavaScript obfuscation pattern is present at the bottom of the page using the classic p,a,c,k,e,d packer (double-packed). The obfuscated code appears to check whether the current hostname matches a list of domain strings (missav888.com, 123av.org, missav01.com, thisav2.com, kiddew.com, m.this.av) and likely performs domain-based conditional logic or redirects. This technique is commonly used to hide malicious behavior from static analysis. (location: page.html:5774-5776)

medium

hidden content

The site logo text 'MISSAV' is rendered with style='visibility: hidden;' in multiple locations (header and footer), making the brand name invisible to users while still present in the DOM. This pattern can be used to serve content to scrapers/crawlers differently than to human users, and is a known cloaking technique. (location: page.html:902, 5552, 5687)

medium

hidden content

A hidden 1x1 pixel iframe is injected via inline JavaScript (Cloudflare challenge-platform script) that creates an invisible iframe (height=1, width=1, visibility:hidden) and injects additional scripts into it. While attributed to Cloudflare bot protection, this pattern of hidden iframe + dynamic script injection is a vector for covert third-party script execution. (location: page.html:5778)

medium

social engineering

The 'More sites' menu promotes pirated/cracked versions of well-known platforms using labels like '哔咔漫画破解版' (Bikini Comics cracked), '成人抖阴破解版' (Adult Douyin cracked), 'TikTok成人版' (TikTok adult version), '糖心vlog破解版' (Tangheart vlog cracked) — falsely implying these are legitimate cracked versions of popular apps to entice clicks to unknown destinations via bit.ly redirects. (location: page.html:1442-1507, page-text.txt:522-548)

medium

malicious redirect

Third-party ad script loaded from sunnycloudstone.com (//sunnycloudstone.com/62/bd/ca/62bdca270715b3b43fbac98597c038f1.js) is injected dynamically into the document head. This domain is not a recognized ad network and the script path is obfuscated with a hash. Dynamically injected scripts from unknown CDN domains can deliver payloads that redirect users or serve malicious ads. (location: page.html:5704-5708)

low

prompt injection

The page encodes a large blockedKeywords object in the Alpine.js x-data attribute that maps terms like 'rape', 'child', 'loli', 'forced', 'drugged' to replacement strings like 'play' or 'played'. This keyword substitution system actively rewrites content to obscure illegal or harmful terminology in rendered output, which could cause an AI agent analyzing visible page text to miss harmful content that is present in the underlying data. (location: page.html:104 (blockedKeywords in x-data))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/missav.live

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is missav.live safe for AI agents to use?

missav.live currently scores 32/100 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.