context safety score
A score of 29/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain ngpay88.com uses a numeric suffix pattern ('88') common in financial phishing and gambling/payment scam sites targeting Asian markets. The domain structure mimics legitimate payment services ('ngpay') to deceive users into believing it is an official payment platform. (location: metadata.json: domain=ngpay88.com)
brand impersonation
The domain name 'ngpay88.com' appears to impersonate a legitimate payment brand by combining 'ngpay' (resembling NGPay, a known mobile payment service) with '88', a numerically-appended variant commonly used in fraudulent lookalike domains to evade exact-match blocklists. (location: metadata.json: domain=ngpay88.com)
phishing
TLS is not connected and certificate is invalid (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A site presenting itself as a payment platform ('ngpay') with no valid TLS certificate poses a serious credential interception and data theft risk to any users submitting financial or personal information. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false, tls.san_match=false)
credential harvesting
The combination of a payment-themed domain (ngpay88.com) and a completely invalid/absent TLS certificate strongly indicates the site may be designed to harvest payment credentials or login data without any transport security, exposing all submitted data in plaintext. (location: metadata.json: tls block — all security indicators false/null)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ngpay88.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ngpay88.com currently scores 29/100 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.