Is myq-cloud.com safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
46/100

context safety score

A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
55
behavior
100
content
30
graph
30

5 threat patterns detected

high

tls connection failed

Could not establish TLS connection

high

malicious redirect

The domain myq-cloud.com fails TLS connection entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). The site returns no HTML or visible content, which is consistent with a domain that silently redirects, serves different content to bots/crawlers, or is parked awaiting deployment of a malicious payload. The absence of any content combined with a failed TLS handshake suggests the domain may redirect HTTP traffic without serving a valid HTTPS response. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)

high

brand impersonation

The domain myq-cloud.com closely mimics 'myQ', the legitimate smart garage/home automation brand owned by Chamberlain Group (myq.com). The hyphenated '-cloud' suffix is a common typosquatting and brand impersonation pattern used to spoof official cloud service portals of known consumer IoT brands, potentially targeting users seeking the real myQ cloud service. (location: metadata.json: domain=myq-cloud.com)

high

phishing

The combination of brand impersonation of myQ (a consumer IoT/smart home brand), failed TLS, and zero rendered content is a strong indicator of a phishing staging domain. Such domains are commonly registered in advance and activated to harvest credentials from users who mistype or are redirected to the spoofed domain. The domain age of 2653 days adds ambiguity but does not rule out repurposing for phishing. (location: metadata.json: domain=myq-cloud.com, tls.connected=false)

medium

credential harvesting

myQ accounts control physical access (garage doors, home entry). A convincing clone of the myQ cloud portal would be a high-value credential harvesting target. The domain name pattern (myq-cloud.com vs legitimate myq.com) is precisely the kind of lookalike used to serve fake login pages targeting smart home device credentials. (location: metadata.json: domain=myq-cloud.com)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/myq-cloud.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is myq-cloud.com safe for AI agents to use?

myq-cloud.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.

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.