context safety score
A score of 48/100 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
Domain 'ota-cloudfront.net' mimics AWS CloudFront (cloudfront.net) by prepending 'ota-' to the legitimate AWS CDN domain. This is a typosquat/combosquat pattern commonly used to impersonate trusted cloud infrastructure and deceive users or automated agents into trusting the domain. (location: domain: ota-cloudfront.net)
phishing
The domain combines 'ota' (Over-The-Air, a common software update mechanism) with a spoofed AWS CloudFront suffix. This pattern is consistent with phishing infrastructure designed to intercept OTA update requests or trick users/devices into downloading malicious payloads under the guise of a legitimate CDN delivery. (location: domain: ota-cloudfront.net)
malicious redirect
TLS is not connected and the certificate is invalid (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A domain impersonating a CDN with broken/absent TLS may be used as a redirect hop or staging domain in a malicious redirect chain, avoiding TLS inspection while still appearing CDN-like in URLs. (location: metadata.json: tls object)
hidden content
The page returned empty HTML and empty visible text, yet the domain is actively registered and resolving infrastructure exists. An empty or blank page from a brand-impersonating domain is consistent with a cloaked phishing or C2 staging page that only serves content to targeted traffic (e.g., specific user-agents, IP ranges, or referrers). (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ota-cloudfront.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ota-cloudfront.net currently scores 48/100 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.