Is motherless.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

11 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

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

obfuscated code

Large heavily obfuscated JavaScript block using hex-encoded identifiers (_0x87a3, _0x2cfd, etc.) with base64 string decoding, array rotation, and string splitting to conceal pop-under/postitial ad injection logic targeting cum.org and trustkiwi.com. The obfuscation actively evades static analysis. (location: page.html:7265)

high

malicious redirect

Obfuscated ad manager (snspAdManager) injects pop-under windows opening 'https://cum.org/pst/...' and postitial overlays that intercept all link clicks and redirect internal navigation through trustkiwi.com (https://trustkiwi.com/zn/1f0a480c-0134-6...) without user consent. The pop logic fires on link clicks site-wide. (location: page.html:7265 (obfuscated ad manager config: url/adblockURL fields))

medium

malicious redirect

Navigation menu contains a paid ad link to 'https://trustberrie.com/zn/1f0cb105-0320-64a6-80ca-5ff59e3a56e7' labeled '18&Abused', which routes through an affiliate tracker domain (trustberrie.com) that is distinct from the site domain and may redirect to third-party adult content. (location: page.html:243)

medium

obfuscated code

Commented-out tracker script (/d63daf.ye5dafas) collects session UUID, IP address, referrer, login state, premium status, and adblock detection into a hidden tracking pixel request. The endpoint uses a non-standard obfuscated path and is commented out but remains present in source. (location: page.html:71)

medium

obfuscated code

Inline JavaScript uses atob() to decode a base64 regex containing terms including 'child', 'children', 'kid', 'loli', 'shota', '13yo'-'17yo', 'rape', 'forced' etc. for content filtering. While framed as a filter, the obfuscation of this sensitive regex hides its full scope from static scanners. (location: page.html:48)

low

hidden content

Multiple category tab sections (gay, transsexual, extreme, funny) are rendered with style='display:none' in HTML, constituting hidden page content that is not visible on initial render but is fully present in the DOM and indexable. (location: page.html:949, 1203, 1424, 1729)

medium

obfuscated code

WebAssembly binary embedded as base64 string inside a heavily obfuscated JavaScript class (class A extends V) performing URL manipulation, parameter injection, and fingerprinting. The WASM module processes URL strings opaquely, making its full behavior unauditable without decompilation. (location: page.html:6442)

low

malicious redirect

Obfuscated self-redirect script splits the string 'motherless.com' across string concatenation ('moth'+'erless'+'.com') and 'htt'+'ps://mo'+'ther'+'less'+'.com' to evade static URL pattern matching while enforcing a redirect for any page not on the canonical domain. (location: page.html:150)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/motherless.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is motherless.com safe for AI agents to use?

motherless.com currently scores 40/100 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.