Is pilotonline.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

critical

malicious redirect

Script tagged 'mng_admiral_script' dynamically loads an external JavaScript module from 'https://thebestpaints.com/ka5069uzl47d.module.js' — a domain unrelated to pilotonline.com or any known ad/analytics vendor. The domain name ('thebestpaints.com') has no affiliation with the site and the randomized path ('ka5069uzl47d.module.js') is characteristic of malware C2 or malvertising payload delivery. This script executes immediately on page load with full DOM access. (location: page.html:17 — <script id='mng_admiral_script'>)

critical

obfuscated code

The 'mng_admiral_script' block uses multiple layers of double-encoded percent-encoding (e.g., '%256%31%2564%25%36%64%2569ral', '%2567%65t%25%349t%65%256%64') to hide the actual string values being passed to window property accessors and localStorage calls. This technique is used to evade static analysis and WAF/scanner detection while concealing the true function names and data being accessed. (location: page.html:17-18 — <script id='mng_admiral_script'>)

high

obfuscated code

Within the same script block, a heavily obfuscated string is constructed via concatenation of '_a' with a double-decoded percent-encoded value ('Q%255%33%25%3302%25%34f%45...') to form a localStorage key used to retrieve and inject ad targeting data (lgk). The obfuscation hides what localStorage key is being read and what data is exfiltrated to the ad network, consistent with session/cookie harvesting patterns. (location: page.html:18 — second IIFE in <script id='mng_admiral_script'>)

medium

credential harvesting

Auth0 client credentials (client_id: 'gEm4FR6ilCllUKh0O8TX6IQyv50NpaTG', domain: 'login.npuserlogin.com') and a third-party entitlements API key ('DHL8Vs1UNo9u0WO52dVBzSuLi4kw2so25cXK1fy7') are exposed in plaintext in two separate inline script blocks. Combined with the presence of the malicious third-party script that has full page access, these credentials are at risk of being harvested by the injected payload. (location: page.html:113 — digisubs_settings-js-extra; page.html:117 — connext_utils-js-extra)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is pilotonline.com safe for AI agents to use?

pilotonline.com currently scores 40/100 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.