context safety score
A score of 48/100 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 'mstea.ms' is a typosquat/homoglyph impersonation of 'ms.teams' (Microsoft Teams). The domain mimics Microsoft Teams by reversing and truncating 'teams' as 'tea.ms' under the 'ms' subdomain-style prefix, likely targeting users who mistype or are deceived into visiting what appears to be a Microsoft Teams URL. (location: domain: mstea.ms)
phishing
TLS is not connected and the certificate is invalid (connected=false, cert_valid=false). A site impersonating Microsoft Teams that does not serve valid HTTPS is a strong indicator of a phishing or credential harvesting setup, as legitimate Microsoft services always use valid TLS. The domain is live but returned no page content, which is consistent with a parked phishing domain or one that only activates under specific conditions (e.g., referral, geolocation, or user-agent targeting). (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
The combination of a Microsoft Teams brand impersonation domain ('mstea.ms') with no valid TLS and empty page content is consistent with a credential harvesting operation. Such domains are routinely used to host fake Microsoft login pages that capture Office 365 or Microsoft account credentials, potentially only activating for targeted victims or specific traffic sources. (location: domain: mstea.ms, metadata.json)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/mstea.msCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
mstea.ms currently scores 48/100 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.