context safety score
A score of 44/100 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
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
obfuscated code
A script tagged 'mng_admiral_script' uses double percent-encoded strings (e.g., '%25%36%31d%256d%69%257%32%25%361%25%36c') to hide the window variable name 'admiral', localStorage method 'getItem', and the googletag targeting object. This deliberate multi-layer URL encoding is designed to evade static scanners while dynamically resolving identifiers at runtime. (location: page.html:16-20, <script id="mng_admiral_script">)
malicious redirect
The obfuscated admiral script dynamically injects an external script from 'https://thebestpaints.com/public/gcm8t2exyin5.app.js' — a domain ('thebestpaints.com') entirely unrelated to nydailynews.com or any known legitimate ad/analytics vendor. The script is loaded asynchronously and inserted into the DOM. This is a classic pattern for a compromised third-party script injection or supply-chain attack delivering malware or redirect payloads to site visitors. (location: page.html:17, A.src="https://thebestpaints.com/public/gcm8t2exyin5.app.js")
hidden content
The admiral script reads a base64-encoded key ('QS02OEVGQTIzNzJFODI0QTAxMTQ4Njc3MUItMTY') from localStorage via an obfuscated 'getItem' call, then extracts 'lgk' (likely 'log keys' or targeting segments) and passes them to Google Ad Manager's setTargeting. This covertly harvests stored user session data and injects it into ad targeting without transparent disclosure. (location: page.html:18, mng_admiral_script second IIFE block)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/nydailynews.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
nydailynews.com currently scores 44/100 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.