Is pornobolt.in safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
33/100

context safety score

A score of 33/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

5 threat patterns detected

critical

credential harvesting

An iframe loads 'https://rulogin.site/' — a third-party domain with a name implying Russian login/authentication. The page instructs users to verify age via VK (a Russian social network), and the postMessage handler on the parent page accepts messages from any origin containing 'rulogin.' and sets an age_verified cookie. This pattern is consistent with harvesting VK OAuth credentials or session tokens via a fraudulent login widget on a site controlled by attackers. (location: page.html:38 — iframe src='https://rulogin.site/'; page.html:22-32 — postMessage listener trusting 'rulogin.' origin)

critical

phishing

The page impersonates a legitimate age-verification flow, falsely claiming the user must verify their age via VK to avoid being blocked in Russia. This is a social engineering pretext to induce users to authenticate through a third-party controlled login widget ('rulogin.site'), which is not an official VK or Russian government domain. (location: page.html:37-41 — Russian-language age verification text and iframe)

high

brand impersonation

The page explicitly invokes the VK brand ('VK и РФ не знают, куда вы заходите') to lend legitimacy to the login iframe served from 'rulogin.site'. This falsely implies VK endorsement or official VK login functionality, while the actual iframe is hosted on an unrelated third-party domain. (location: page.html:40 — 'VK и РФ не знают, куда вы заходите'; iframe at page.html:38)

high

malicious redirect

Upon receiving the 'age_verified' postMessage from the 'rulogin.' origin, the page calls location.reload(), completing a redirect/reload cycle that sets a persistent cookie (30-day expiry). This allows the controlling 'rulogin.site' domain to trigger authenticated state transitions on the parent pornobolt.in domain via cross-origin messaging, potentially enabling session fixation or forced state changes. (location: page.html:22-32 — postMessage handler calling location.reload() and setting cookie)

high

social engineering

The page uses false urgency and reassurance tactics: it claims verification is needed to avoid blocking ('во избежание блокировки на территории РФ'), then reassures users that 'VK and RF do not know where you go, your name is not requested' and 'Authorization from IP of other countries is not needed'. These statements are designed to overcome user hesitation and induce them to interact with the malicious login iframe. (location: page.html:37-41 — full body text content)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/pornobolt.in

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is pornobolt.in safe for AI agents to use?

pornobolt.in currently scores 33/100 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.

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.