context safety score
A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain pomxd.com is only 29 days old. Extremely new domains are a strong indicator of throwaway infrastructure commonly used in phishing campaigns, as attackers register fresh domains to evade blocklists and reputation systems. (location: metadata.json: whois.domain_age_days=29)
phishing
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A site serving no valid HTTPS is highly anomalous for any legitimate service and is consistent with malicious or abandoned phishing infrastructure that was never fully configured. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
phishing
Hosting reputation is Unknown and the domain is not on any known blocklist yet. Combined with the domain age of 29 days, this profile matches newly registered phishing infrastructure that has not yet been reported or indexed by threat intelligence feeds. (location: metadata.json: hosting.reputation=Unknown, blocklist.listed=false)
hidden content
The page HTML and all visible/hidden text files are completely empty despite the domain resolving. This blank-page pattern can indicate cloaking behavior — serving empty content to scanners and crawlers while delivering malicious payloads only to targeted human victims or specific user-agent/referrer combinations. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/pomxd.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
pomxd.com currently scores 45/100 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.
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.