context safety score
A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) for https://popin.cc. The site cannot establish a valid HTTPS session, which is a strong indicator of a misconfigured, deceptive, or infrastructure-level redirect/interception setup. Legitimate sites do not fail TLS handshakes at the domain root. (location: metadata.json: tls object)
social engineering
The domain popin.cc uses a .cc ccTLD (Cocos Islands) combined with a name suggesting pop-up or pop-in behavior. This naming pattern is commonly associated with intrusive ad networks, forced redirects, or social engineering lures designed to hijack user attention. No page content was retrievable, consistent with a domain used for redirect chains rather than direct content delivery. (location: metadata.json: domain=popin.cc)
phishing
Domain age is unknown/null, WHOIS privacy status is unknown, and the TLS certificate could not be validated. This combination — opaque registration, unverifiable TLS, and zero retrievable content — matches the infrastructure profile of a phishing staging domain or redirect hop used to obscure the true destination from scanners. (location: metadata.json: whois and tls fields)
hidden content
Despite a TLS connection attempt and crawl of https://popin.cc, all content files (page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt) are empty. The site returned no renderable content, suggesting active bot/scanner detection and content cloaking — serving different content to real users than to automated analysis tools. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt (all empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/popin.ccCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
popin.cc 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.
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.