context safety score
A score of 38/100 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 'pokemoncenter-online.com' impersonates the official Pokémon Center brand (pokemoncenter.com) by appending '-online' to the trademarked name. This is a classic typosquatting/brand impersonation pattern used to deceive users into believing they are visiting the legitimate official Pokémon Center store. (location: domain: pokemoncenter-online.com)
phishing
The domain closely mimics the legitimate Pokémon Center retail site (pokemoncenter.com). Combined with a failed TLS connection (connected=false, cert_valid=false), this site cannot establish a secure connection, a strong indicator of a phishing or fraudulent site that may harvest credentials or payment information from unsuspecting users. (location: domain: pokemoncenter-online.com, TLS metadata)
credential harvesting
The combination of brand impersonation targeting a well-known e-commerce brand (Pokémon Center) and invalid/absent TLS certificate is consistent with credential and payment harvesting sites. Users tricked into visiting this domain may submit login credentials or payment card data to attackers. (location: domain: pokemoncenter-online.com, tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
malicious redirect
The site failed to establish a TLS connection (connected=false), which may indicate the domain is parked, inactive, or configured to redirect traffic. Domains impersonating major brands are frequently used as redirect hops in phishing chains or malvertising campaigns. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.san_match=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/pokemoncenter-online.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
pokemoncenter-online.com currently scores 38/100 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.