Is porno666.work safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
47/100

context safety score

A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
55
content
34
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

malicious redirect

The page is served from porno666.work but all navigation, assets, scripts, and canonical links point to porno666.link (a different domain). The canonical tag explicitly redirects search engines and agents to https://porno666.link/cat/, and the logo, stylesheet, JS, search form, and all content links resolve to porno666.link. This cross-domain asset and link hijacking pattern is consistent with a parked/mirror domain funneling traffic to a separate destination domain without user awareness. (location: page.html:8 (canonical), page.html:16-19 (assets), page.html:38-83 (nav links))

medium

hidden content

A LiveInternet tracking pixel is embedded inside an HTML comment block (<!--LiveInternet counter--><script><!-- ... //--></script>) using the legacy comment-hiding technique to conceal a tracking beacon from casual inspection. The script fires a silent image request to counter.yadro.ru with full referrer, screen resolution, color depth, and page URL data — collecting visitor fingerprint information covertly. (location: page.html:1161-1166)

low

hidden content

A commented-out TDS (Traffic Distribution System) script tag is present: <!-- <script id="tds-code" src="/_tds/code/code.min.js.php"></script> -->. TDS scripts are commonly used in adult/malvertising networks to redirect traffic based on geo, device, or referrer. Its presence suggests this infrastructure has been or could be used for conditional malicious redirects. (location: page.html:1176)

medium

social engineering

Video title on the page explicitly references sexual activity starting 'с 12 лет' (from age 12), which is CSAM-adjacent content used as a lure. This content is designed to attract and normalize illegal material, posing significant legal and reputational risk to any user or agent interacting with the site. The disclaimer claims all models are 18+ but the title directly contradicts this. (location: page.html:1102, page-text.txt:1085)

medium

malicious redirect

The page loads all JavaScript (jquery.mobile.custom.min.js, main.min.js) and CSS exclusively from the external domain porno666.link rather than the served domain porno666.work. This means any compromise of porno666.link allows arbitrary code execution on visitors to porno666.work — a classic supply-chain/cross-domain script injection vector. (location: page.html:19 (JS), page.html:16-17 (CSS), page.html:1159 (main JS))

low

hidden content

A pageContext JavaScript object exposes a loginUrl pointing to https://porno666.link/login-required/, suggesting a login/authentication flow exists that routes through the alternate domain. Combined with the cross-domain redirect pattern, any credential submission would go to porno666.link rather than the domain the user believes they are on (porno666.work). (location: page.html:21-23)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/porno666.work

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is porno666.work safe for AI agents to use?

porno666.work currently scores 47/100 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.