Is pirlotv2.pl safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
46/100

context safety score

A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
20
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

brand impersonation

Site operates as 'pirlotv2.pl' but impersonates the established 'Pirlo TV' and 'Rojadirecta' brands for unauthorized live sports streaming. The canonical tag points to pirlotv3.com and the footer credits pirlotv3.com, indicating a network of clone/mirror sites sharing the same brand identity to distribute pirated content and ad traffic. (location: page.html:<title>, <meta name='author'>, <link rel='canonical'>, footer)

high

malicious redirect

Canonical tag redirects users from pirlotv2.pl to www.pirlotv3.com, and stream links scatter users across a network of third-party domains (pirlotv3.com, pelotalibretv2.pl, tarjetarojatv.blog, pirlotvonline.blog, rojadirectatv3.pl). These redirects route users through multiple uncontrolled domains that may serve malicious ads, exploits, or further redirects. (location: page.html:12,35-63)

medium

malicious redirect

Third-party ad script loaded from al5sm.com via an obfuscated self-executing function that dynamically appends a script element. al5sm.com is an ad network associated with aggressive/malvertising ad delivery common on piracy sites. The script has no integrity check and executes with full page privileges. (location: page.html:25)

medium

obfuscated code

An obfuscated inline script injects a hidden 1x1 pixel iframe (position:absolute, visibility:hidden) and then injects another script into that iframe's document with base64-encoded parameters (t='MTc3MjYzMDI2NQ=='). This pattern is used to fingerprint users or evade CSP/bot detection while running code in an isolated context. (location: page.html:87)

medium

hidden content

A 1x1 pixel invisible iframe (height=1, width=1, position:absolute, top:0, left:0, border:none, visibility:hidden) is injected into the DOM at runtime. Hidden iframes are commonly used for clickjacking, ad fraud, drive-by downloads, or silent data exfiltration. (location: page.html:87)

medium

social engineering

The site presents itself as a legitimate sports programming guide ('Programacion de Hoy') with familiar brand names (NBA, Liga MX, Copa Sudamericana, UEFA Champions League) and official-sounding channel names to build trust and entice users to click stream links that route through potentially malicious third-party domains. (location: page.html:31-64, page-text.txt:5-37)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/pirlotv2.pl

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is pirlotv2.pl safe for AI agents to use?

pirlotv2.pl currently scores 46/100 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.

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.