Is ojogodobicho.com safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
45/100

context safety score

A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
60
content
21
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

high

hidden content

1 hidden or tiny iframe elements detected

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

medium

hidden content

A 1x1 pixel invisible iframe loads from 'ad.mediabr.media' (https://ad.mediabr.media/deliver/pixel/640a81ef4d446d8) with no border and scrolling disabled, used as a tracking pixel. This silently exfiltrates visitor data without user awareness or disclosure. (location: page.html:183)

low

hidden content

An element with class 'sr-only' is styled with position:absolute, width:1px, height:1px, overflow:hidden, and clip:rect(0,0,0,0) — visually hiding it from users. While used here for an ad section label ('Publicidade'), the pattern is a known technique for hiding content from users while keeping it accessible to bots/scrapers. (location: page.html:161)

low

social engineering

The site repeatedly disclaims it does not promote gambling ('Este site não arrecada ou promove nenhum tipo de jogo ou aposta') while simultaneously providing gambling tips, statistics, horoscopes, and 'palpites' (betting tips) for an illegal numbers game ('jogo do bicho'). The disclaimers appear designed to avoid legal liability while facilitating illegal gambling activity. (location: page.html:110,118)

medium

hidden content

Third-party push notification SDK loaded dynamically from 'notifpush.com' via obfuscated inline script. The script injects itself before existing scripts in the DOM and registers a device ID ('78b2c10969c14156'), enabling persistent tracking and potentially unsolicited push notifications without clear user consent. (location: page.html:182)

medium

obfuscated code

CleverWebServer ad script dynamically injects a cross-origin script from 'scripts.cleverwebserver.com' using a DOM injection pattern that attempts to escape iframe sandboxing by accessing 'parent.document'. The script uses placeholder callback attributes ('put-your-callback-function-here', 'put-your-click-macro-here') suggesting an unfinished or templated malicious ad framework injection. (location: page.html:184-210)

low

malicious redirect

Footer link 'Login associados' points to 'ojogodobicho.net' (different TLD from the main site 'ojogodobicho.com'), which could redirect users to an unrelated or malicious domain under a similar brand name. The cross-TLD link with no visual differentiation could be used for brand confusion or credential harvesting on the .net domain. (location: page.html:174)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ojogodobicho.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is ojogodobicho.com safe for AI agents to use?

ojogodobicho.com 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.