context safety score
A score of 30/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses eval() with String.fromCharCode — common obfuscation
js obfuscation
JavaScript appears to use a common packer pattern (p,a,c,k,e,d)
malicious redirect
Multiple 'More sites' partner links use bit.ly URL shorteners (e.g., bit.ly/3HXTrNA, bit.ly/4tO0bAC, bit.ly/4rdPxBm, bit.ly/4o2Ad8Q, bit.ly/4gRZIHs, bit.ly/4bQtWu8, bit.ly/4apXHPS, bit.ly/3JkoZxK, bit.ly/46CgsyZ) that obscure the true destination of external links, linking to Chinese-language adult platforms. The real destinations are unknown and cannot be verified without following the redirect chain. (location: page.html:1423-1493, page.html:1923-1993)
obfuscated code
A heavily double-obfuscated eval() payload is present near the end of the page using a nested Dean Edwards p,a,c,k,e,d packer pattern. The code constructs domain name strings character-by-character (missav.live, 123av.org, njavtv.com, missav789.com, thisav2.com, missav123.com) and appears to perform conditional logic or redirects based on the current host. This obfuscation is used to hide executable logic from static analysis. (location: page-text.txt:2711)
hidden content
The logo element uses inline style 'visibility: hidden;' (style="visibility: hidden;") making the brand text invisible to users but present in the DOM. While this may be a font-loading technique (font-serif class is later made visible via JS), combined with other obfuscation signals it represents a content-hiding pattern worth flagging. (location: page.html:900)
social engineering
Several video titles in the FC2-PPV section use urgency and scarcity tactics common in social engineering: '50% OFF until 3/5', 'Limited time release', '1 day limited reprint sale', 'First come, first served', 'half price until March 12th'. These pressure tactics are designed to manipulate user behavior into clicking or transacting quickly without due consideration. (location: page-text.txt:1789, 1809, 1849, 1909, 1969, 2009)
hidden content
A Cloudflare challenge-platform script is injected via a hidden iframe (height=1, width=1, position absolute, visibility hidden) dynamically creating a script element with encoded parameters (r:'9d6fd1855a5972e4'). This technique embeds invisible iframes to execute scripts without user awareness, a pattern used for fingerprinting, bot detection bypass seeding, or covert script execution. (location: page-text.txt:2714)
brand impersonation
The 'More sites' menu includes entries with names like 'TikTok成人版' (TikTok Adult Version) and 'P站中文免费版' (PornHub Chinese Free Version) which impersonate or trade on the brand recognition of TikTok and Pornhub ('P站') to attract clicks to unverified third-party destinations via bit.ly redirects. (location: page.html:1471-1493, page-text.txt:534, 528)
credential harvesting
The site presents login, registration, password reset, and password change forms that collect email, username, and passwords. While this is expected for a legitimate site, the login API endpoint posts credentials to https://njavtv.com/en/api/login over a connection that also serves content from the external CDN domain fourhoi.com and loads OG images from missav.ws — cross-origin trust boundaries that could facilitate credential interception if any of those domains are compromised. (location: page.html:454, page.html:471, page.html:491, page.html:508)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/njavtv.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
njavtv.com currently scores 30/100 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.