context safety score
A score of 47/100 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
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
obfuscated code
The page contains a large heavily obfuscated JavaScript block using mangled variable names, encoded string arrays, and opaque function wrappers (IIFE pattern). The obfuscation hides the true behavior of the script, preventing straightforward static analysis. This is consistent with bot-detection/challenge frameworks (e.g., Kasada, PerimeterX) but also matches techniques used to conceal malicious payloads. (location: page.html:14, page-text.txt:2)
malicious redirect
The secondary inline script reads the response header 'ISTL-REDIRECT-TO' and, if present, immediately calls location.replace(a) to silently redirect the user to a server-controlled URL. This is a server-driven redirect mechanism that could be weaponized to send users to phishing or malware pages without any visible indication. (location: page.html:29-31)
obfuscated code
The page fires a custom DOM event named 'TzfEIZTPB' carrying base64-encoded and encoded payload strings, numeric arrays, and nonce values via document.createEvent/CustomEvent/dispatchEvent. This covert event-based communication channel is used to pass opaque data between scripts, obscuring inter-script coordination from static analysis. (location: page.html:15)
hidden content
The page body contains no visible human-readable content — no text, images, or UI elements. All page content is generated dynamically via document.write(xhr.responseText) after an XHR back to the origin. The actual page content delivered to the user is entirely server-controlled and not present in the static HTML, making it impossible to assess without runtime execution. (location: page.html:1-66)
prompt injection
The XHR replay mechanism (afterReadyCb) reconstructs and re-sends the original request including headers such as 'x-op-clientip' with a hardcoded IP (34.96.45.241) and 'x-requestid'. If an AI agent fetches and processes the page, these headers could be used to fingerprint or manipulate agent behavior by feeding different content based on replay detection logic in the server response. (location: page.html:20, page-text.txt:8)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/op.fiCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
op.fi currently scores 47/100 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.