context safety score
A score of 33/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
social engineering
Site claims 'Bollywood's number one choice' and uses fabricated social proof ('1M+ creators', '5X profile visits', '4X engagement rate', '+20% revenue') with no verifiable evidence. Aggressive urgency and false authority tactics are used to manipulate users into purchasing fake social media engagement services. (location: page.html:9-10, page.html:116-117, page.html:332-369)
credential harvesting
Login form with username and password fields is embedded directly on the marketing/landing page (not a dedicated login page). The form posts credentials to '/' (root), which is atypical and suspicious. Combined with Google OAuth integration pointing to '/confirm_signup', credentials may be harvested or misused. (location: page.html:165-234)
brand impersonation
The site claims association with 'Bollywood' celebrities and implies endorsement ('trusted by celebrities') without any substantiation. The meta description explicitly states 'Quality that bollywood trusts' to falsely imply celebrity brand endorsement to build false legitimacy. (location: page.html:10, page.html:495)
hidden content
Three separate Facebook Pixel tracking scripts are embedded (pixel IDs: 1514818043115266, 1237728354938730, 849944658845757), enabling covert multi-account behavioral tracking and user profiling across sessions without clear disclosure to users. (location: page.html:15-30, page.html:72-74, page.html:76-79)
hidden content
A 1x1 pixel noscript Facebook tracking image is embedded as a fallback tracker for users with JavaScript disabled, silently tracking page visits without user awareness or consent notice. (location: page.html:28-30)
social engineering
Text explicitly states 'We will never ask you for sensitive details such as your password' in the onboarding steps, while simultaneously displaying a full login form with a password field on the same page. This contradictory messaging is a deceptive trust-building technique. (location: page.html:442-444)
credential harvesting
Google OAuth client ID (103182390408-ksjfu8h6m56c8gn4vqrhn2iq1bjo95e0.apps.googleusercontent.com) is configured with data-login_uri='/confirm_signup', routing Google sign-in tokens to a third-party SMM panel endpoint rather than a standard Google-controlled callback, risking token misuse. (location: page.html:217-220)
hidden content
A cryptomus payment processor verification meta tag is embedded in the page head, indicating integration with a cryptocurrency payment gateway. This is not disclosed to users and represents a hidden financial service integration. (location: page.html:14)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/myfame.inCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
myfame.in currently scores 33/100 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.
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.