context safety score
A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
The domain 'office365.us' directly impersonates Microsoft's Office 365 brand. Microsoft's legitimate Office 365 services operate under microsoft.com and office.com domains. The .us TLD combined with the exact 'office365' product name constitutes clear brand impersonation designed to deceive users into believing they are interacting with a legitimate Microsoft service. (location: domain: office365.us)
phishing
The domain 'office365.us' is a classic phishing domain pattern: it copies a well-known brand name (Office 365) with a country-code TLD (.us) rather than the legitimate domain (.com). TLS is not connected and cert is invalid (connected=false, cert_valid=false), meaning the site cannot establish a valid HTTPS connection — a strong indicator the site is not a legitimate enterprise service and may be used for credential harvesting via deceptive login pages. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
Office 365 impersonation domains are among the most common vectors for credential harvesting. The combination of brand impersonation targeting Microsoft credentials, invalid TLS, and a non-official TLD strongly indicates this domain is set up to capture Microsoft account usernames and passwords from users who are deceived by the branding. (location: domain: office365.us)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/office365.usCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
office365.us currently scores 45/100 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.
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.