context safety score
A score of 36/100 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
brand impersonation
The page is served from domain o7.com but all internal content, JSON configuration, CAS authentication URLs, and asset references point to www.cloud.rt.ru and cloud.rt.ru — the legitimate Rostelecom Cloud portal. The page title reads 'Облако Ростелеком х Турбо Облако' (Rostelecom Cloud x Turbo Cloud) and uses official Rostelecom branding assets (RostelecomBasis fonts, official logo SVGs). Serving Rostelecom-branded content from an unrelated domain o7.com is a strong indicator of brand impersonation or an unauthorized mirror/proxy. (location: page.html:1 — title, font preloads, and JSON config referencing cloud.rt.ru served under o7.com)
malicious redirect
The React-on-Rails context JSON explicitly sets href and host to 'https://www.cloud.rt.ru/showcase/main', while the actual serving domain is o7.com. This domain mismatch suggests the page is proxying or cloning the legitimate Rostelecom Cloud site, potentially to intercept authentication flows through the CAS URL (https://cloud.rt.ru/cas/) before redirecting users to the real site. (location: page.html:78 — js-react-on-rails-context script block)
credential harvesting
The page embeds a CAS (Central Authentication Service) URL 'https://cloud.rt.ru/cas/' within application JSON served from the foreign domain o7.com. A proxy-based credential harvesting attack (adversary-in-the-middle) would allow the operator of o7.com to capture credentials submitted to what appears to be a legitimate Rostelecom login flow. The ESIA (government identity system) integration flag 'esia_enabled: true' increases the risk surface to include Russian government/citizen identity credentials. (location: page.html:76,80 — HeaderEntryPoint and ShowcaseEntryPoint JSON blobs, cas_url field)
hidden content
The page-text.txt reveals that virtually all visible text content is whitespace/empty, yet the page contains substantial application JSON data embedded in script tags. The actual UI content is deferred entirely to client-side JavaScript rendering. This means the page presents no human-readable content to static scanners while silently bootstrapping a full authenticated cloud portal session, hiding its true function from automated analysis. (location: page-text.txt:1-74 — all whitespace visible text; page.html:76-80 — JSON payloads in script tags)
hidden content
A Sentry DSN with what appears to be both a public key and secret key embedded in plaintext in the page source: 'https://60301db8a71649ca8cb72e1c32be7994:5cc7088f6a4243cba4b86293db474e97@sentry.cloud.rt.ru/2'. Exposure of Sentry secret keys can allow an attacker to submit forged error events or read existing error data from the Sentry project, potentially leaking stack traces and sensitive application internals. (location: page.html:89 — inline script: sentry_dsn assignment)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/o7.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
o7.com currently scores 36/100 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.