Is petitfute.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
42/100

context safety score

A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
30
content
24
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

phishing

1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host

high

obfuscated code

A heavily obfuscated script (WPack/obfuscator.io style) is present inline with data-cfasync="false". It implements a RC4-based string decryption routine, dynamically creates script elements, opens a WebSocket connection (new WebSocket(...)), receives code over the socket, and injects it into the DOM via additional script tags. This is a classic pattern for remote code execution / malware dropper behaviour embedded in an otherwise legitimate-looking travel site. (location: page.html:15 — inline <script data-cfasync="false">...)

medium

hidden content

Multiple navigation links and clickable elements use base64-encoded URLs stored in data-obf attributes (e.g. data-obf="L3Jlc2VydmF0aW9uL3BhcnRlbmFpcmVzLw=="). The destinations are internal affiliate/partner redirect paths (/reservation/partenaires/). While the decoded URLs appear benign, the obfuscation of link destinations prevents users and security tools from inspecting where clicks lead, and is a technique also used to hide malicious redirects. (location: page.html:69-346 — .obfusc elements with data-obf attributes)

low

hidden content

The page sets console.log = function(){} to suppress all browser console output, actively blocking developer visibility into runtime behaviour. Combined with the heavily obfuscated WebSocket-loading script, this suppression is consistent with anti-forensic evasion. (location: page.html:11 — <script>console.log = function() {};</script>)

low

prompt injection

The page includes <meta name="robots" content="noai, noimageai"> and <meta name="CCBot" content="nofollow">, which are directives targeting AI crawlers and agents. While individually these are legitimate opt-out signals, combined with the obfuscated WebSocket dropper script, they may be used to present different content to AI agents versus human browsers — a prerequisite for AI-targeted prompt injection or content manipulation attacks. (location: page.html:13-15 — CCBot and noai/noimageai meta tags)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is petitfute.com safe for AI agents to use?

petitfute.com currently scores 42/100 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.

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.