context safety score
A score of 41/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
brand impersonation
The domain 'onlyfanspacks.com' impersonates the OnlyFans brand by incorporating the 'onlyfans' trademark directly into the domain name, site title, and throughout content. The site presents itself as an official or affiliated OnlyFans content hub to lure users, while it is an unauthorized third-party operation distributing purportedly leaked/stolen content. (location: domain: onlyfanspacks.com, page title: 'Onlyfans Packs - Xvideos Privacy Grátis - Xvideos Onlyfans', og:site_name meta tag)
social engineering
The site uses deceptive lures claiming to offer free leaked/stolen private adult content ('vazados', 'privacy', 'packs') from real named individuals to drive clicks and engagement with ad networks. Content titles explicitly reference stolen intimate media from named persons, enticing users with promises of 'free' premium content to harvest ad revenue and expose users to malicious ad networks. (location: page.html lines 181-755, page-text.txt lines 45-619, footer description text lines 771-778)
malicious redirect
A JavaScript snippet forces top-level frame navigation to onlyfanspacks.com if the current hostname differs, using string concatenation to obfuscate the domain ('onlyfans'+'packs'+'.com'). This is a clickjacking/iframe-busting technique that forces redirects and can be abused to trap users or break out of sandboxed browsing contexts. (location: page.html lines 130-133)
malicious redirect
Two scripts are loaded from 'xtraffix.com' (a known pop-under/pop-up ad network): pop.php and popunder.php with publisher code c=278. These scripts inject pop-under advertisements that redirect users to third-party sites, often used for malvertising, scam offers, and drive-by download campaigns. (location: page.html line 796: src='https://xtraffix.com/ads/pop.php?c=278&v=030402' and src='https://xtraffix.com/ads/popunder.php?c=278&v=030402')
hidden content
A CSS rule hides elements with classes '.m18lochide' and '.m18locsh' using display:none. These hidden elements are used by native ad injection scripts (Revive Adserver zones 520 and 521) that inject ads invisibly into the page structure, camouflaged as content listings with 'ADS' labels but rendered via hidden ins tags with data-revive attributes. (location: page.html line 82: style '.m18lochide,.m18locsh{display:none;}', lines 200-213 and 261-275 (m18native ad blocks with hidden ins elements))
hidden content
A zero-dimension tracking pixel (width=0, height=0) from 'whos.amung.us' is embedded at the bottom of the page body with display:none styling, silently tracking visitor counts and potentially user data without disclosure. (location: page.html line 807: img src='https://whos.amung.us/swidget/9sbyspcb05.gif' width='0' height='0')
obfuscated code
The domain enforcement redirect script uses string concatenation to construct the target URL ('onlyfans'+'packs'+'.com') rather than writing the domain plainly. This obfuscation technique is used to evade static string-matching security scanners while still executing a forced top-frame redirect. (location: page.html lines 131-132)
social engineering
Third-party ad iframes from 'maxfullad.com' (Revive Adserver instance) are embedded twice on the page serving adult ad zone 346. The ad network is associated with adult/explicit content advertising and may serve misleading or deceptive ads. The iframes use a literal placeholder 'INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' instead of a real cache-buster, suggesting poorly configured or template-generated malvertising infrastructure. (location: page.html lines 174-175 and 763-765)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/onlyfanspacks.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
onlyfanspacks.com currently scores 41/100 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.