context safety score
A score of 46/100 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
obfuscated code
A large obfuscated JavaScript block is present in the page footer (PC Pops section). It uses URI-encoded strings, character-code arithmetic (Caesar-cipher-style rotation over printable ASCII), and dynamic string splitting/reassembly to hide its final payload and target URLs. The decoded string contains encoded URL fragments and behavioral logic that cannot be statically verified. This pattern is consistent with adware/malvertising pop-under scripts that conceal their redirect destinations. (location: page.html:559 (inline script under '<!-- PC Pops -->' comment))
malicious redirect
An external script is loaded from 'glimmersmugglingsullen.com/on.js' — a domain whose name is semantically suspicious and unrelated to any legitimate ad network. It is loaded asynchronously with data-cfasync='false' (bypassing Cloudflare inspection) and references a callback 'pibgpziv' defined inside the obfuscated block above. This is a classic pop-under/redirect payload loader used by malvertising networks to redirect users to phishing, scareware, or affiliate-fraud pages. (location: page.html:560 (<script src='//glimmersmugglingsullen.com/on.js'>))
obfuscated code
The obfuscated pop-under script is also reproduced verbatim in page-text.txt, indicating it is rendered as visible/extractable text content rather than being purely inert. This means web crawlers and AI agents processing the page text would ingest the obfuscated payload directly. (location: page-text.txt:503-505 (inline script block))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/momon-ga.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
momon-ga.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.