context safety score
A score of 44/100 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 'personio-internal.de' impersonates Personio, a legitimate HR software company (personio.com). The addition of '-internal' is a classic typosquatting/subdomain-spoofing tactic designed to appear as an internal corporate resource of Personio, targeting employees or customers into trusting the site. (location: domain: personio-internal.de)
phishing
The domain pattern 'personio-internal.de' is consistent with phishing infrastructure targeting Personio users or employees. The '-internal' suffix suggests an attempt to mimic an internal company portal, commonly used in credential-harvesting phishing attacks against corporate targets. (location: domain: personio-internal.de)
credential harvesting
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), yet the site is served over HTTPS. Combined with the brand impersonation pattern, this is consistent with a credential harvesting page that may present a fake Personio login form. The invalid/absent TLS certificate increases risk that any submitted credentials are exposed or captured by a malicious actor. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
social engineering
The domain name 'personio-internal.de' uses the word 'internal' to create a false sense of legitimacy and urgency, suggesting this is an official internal resource. This social engineering tactic is designed to lower victim suspicion and encourage credential submission or sensitive action without verification. (location: domain: personio-internal.de)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/personio-internal.deCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
personio-internal.de currently scores 44/100 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.