context safety score
A score of 49/100 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
Domain 'mybluehost.me' uses a .me TLD to impersonate the legitimate 'bluehost.com' web hosting brand. The name directly incorporates the Bluehost trademark with a possessive prefix ('my') and a non-standard TLD, a classic typosquatting/brand impersonation pattern targeting users searching for the real Bluehost service. (location: domain: mybluehost.me)
phishing
The combination of a brand-impersonating domain name (mybluehost.me mimicking bluehost.com), TLS connection failure (TLS connected=false, cert_valid=false), and WHOIS privacy redaction are consistent indicators of a phishing site. Legitimate hosting providers maintain valid TLS certificates; the absence of one on a site impersonating a hosting brand strongly suggests malicious intent. (location: domain: mybluehost.me, TLS: connected=false, cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
A site impersonating Bluehost — a web hosting company with a customer login portal — with no valid TLS and WHOIS privacy redaction is a strong candidate for credential harvesting. Users tricked into visiting may attempt to log in, submitting credentials to an attacker-controlled endpoint. (location: domain: mybluehost.me)
hidden content
TLS negotiation failed entirely (connected=false), meaning page content could not be retrieved for analysis. Empty page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt files indicate the page was inaccessible during scanning. This prevents full content inspection and may indicate the site blocks automated scanners while serving malicious content to real browsers. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty); TLS connected=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/mybluehost.meCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
mybluehost.me currently scores 49/100 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.