Is pptechnology.cc safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
28/100

context safety score

A score of 28/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
60
behavior
60
content
0
graph
30

12 threat patterns detected

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

social engineering

Page presents a password-gated access wall (Chinese: '请输入密码访问' = 'Enter password to access') with a link to a 'password directory' (密码大全) at https://2026.72.chat/pan.html. This is a classic gated-content social engineering pattern used to funnel users through controlled redirect infrastructure by promising access to 'latest resources' (最新资源链接). (location: page.html:41-61, page.html:51)

critical

malicious redirect

Password-keyed redirect table hardcoded in JavaScript maps simple passwords (123456, 123, 666, 888, url, 72, 111) to external URLs including cloud storage shares (pan.xunlei.com, pan.quark.cn), a link shortener/tracker (url.72.chat/link/index.php?share_id=...), and an Alipay page (2026.72.chat/alipay.html). Password '111' redirects to an Alipay-themed page which is a high-risk financial phishing vector. Passwords '1','2','3','4' redirect to private LAN router admin addresses (192.168.0.1, 192.168.1.1), enabling local network router compromise. (location: page.html:108-129)

critical

malicious redirect

Passwords '1', '2', '3', '4' map to internal LAN IP addresses (http://192.168.0.1, http://192.168.1.1, https://192.168.0.1, https://192.168.1.1). If visited in a browser, these redirect the victim to their local router admin panel, enabling CSRF-based router hijacking or credential harvesting against default router login pages. (location: page.html:116-119)

high

phishing

Password '111' redirects to 'https://2026.72.chat/alipay.html' — a page mimicking or referencing Alipay (major Chinese payment platform). This is a financial phishing redirect embedded in the password lookup table. (location: page.html:113)

high

credential harvesting

The site collects user-entered passwords via a password input field (id='password', autocomplete='off'). Entered values are logged to the browser console (console.log on line 125) and matched against a hardcoded table. The input collection mechanism and console logging can facilitate credential harvesting if the site is extended or monitored via injected scripts. (location: page.html:48, page.html:125)

medium

hidden content

Two anti-framing scripts force the page to break out of iframes and open itself in the top-level browsing context (window.top.location.href and window.open with '_top'). While this can be defensive, in a malicious context it is used to ensure the phishing/redirect page always runs in full browser context, defeating sandboxing by security tools or iframe-based analysis. (location: page.html:7-17)

medium

hidden content

External scripts loaded from a third-party CDN domain 'images.urldance.com' (CSS and JS assets including jQuery and layer.js). This domain is not the hosting domain and represents an external dependency that could serve malicious payloads or be used to update attack behavior without changing the primary page. (location: page.html:18-20, page.html:85-86)

medium

hidden content

Baidu Analytics tracker dynamically injected via script (hm.baidu.com/hm.js) and a secondary analytics SDK from sdk.51.la. Both trackers collect visitor telemetry and forward it to third-party Chinese analytics platforms. Combined with the password-entry flow, this enables the operators to correlate visitor behavior and submitted passwords with user fingerprints. (location: page.html:142-152)

medium

social engineering

The page instructs mobile users to add the site to their home screen ('添加到主屏幕') or bookmarks ('添加到收藏夹'), with browser-specific UI guidance and share icons. This is a persistence social engineering tactic to ensure repeat visits and bookmark the malicious redirect gateway. (location: page.html:62-84)

high

malicious redirect

Password 'url' redirects to 'https://url.72.chat/link/index.php?share_id=EkykPpzlZZ' — a link shortener/tracker endpoint on the 72.chat domain. Link shorteners in this context obscure the final destination, enabling chained redirects to arbitrary malicious content. (location: page.html:110)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/pptechnology.cc

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is pptechnology.cc safe for AI agents to use?

pptechnology.cc currently scores 28/100 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.