context safety score
A score of 24/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
brand impersonation
The page at preferencenail.com (a nail-related domain with no affiliation to Google) renders a full replica of Google's 'unusual traffic' CAPTCHA interstitial, including Google branding, Google reCAPTCHA enterprise script, Google Terms of Service links, and Google support links. The page title is explicitly set to 'https://google.com/' to further deceive users into believing they are on a Google property. (location: page.html:<title> tag (line 3), body text (lines 22-28), form action and hidden 'continue' field (line 17))
phishing
The domain preferencenail.com hosts a fake Google CAPTCHA page that submits a POST form to 'index' with a hidden 'continue' parameter set to 'https://google.com/'. This is a classic phishing interstitial designed to intercept user sessions, harvest CAPTCHA tokens, or redirect victims after a fake verification step — all under the guise of a legitimate Google security check. (location: page.html: form id='captcha-form' action='index' (line 7), hidden input name='continue' value='https://google.com/' (line 17))
malicious redirect
The form contains a hidden 'continue' input with value 'https://google.com/' and posts to a local 'index' endpoint. This pattern is used to capture the CAPTCHA response server-side before optionally redirecting the victim, enabling token harvesting or session fixation while appearing to legitimately forward to Google. (location: page.html: line 17, hidden input name='continue' value='https://google.com/')
social engineering
The page fabricates a Google security warning claiming 'Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network' and displays the victim's real IP address (2600:1900:0:2d07::2e01) and a real timestamp to create urgency and legitimacy. This is a social engineering tactic to pressure users into completing the fake CAPTCHA, which submits data to the attacker-controlled server. (location: page.html: lines 24-31, IP address and timestamp display)
credential harvesting
The reCAPTCHA enterprise widget uses a data-sitekey and pre-populated data-s token, and the form POSTs to a local 'index' endpoint — not to Google. This infrastructure is consistent with CAPTCHA token harvesting: the attacker collects solved CAPTCHA responses server-side, which can be replayed or sold, and may also be used to gate credential-harvesting steps that follow 'verification'. (location: page.html: line 15, g-recaptcha div with data-sitekey and data-s attributes; form action='index' (line 7))
prompt injection
The page title is set to 'https://google.com/' rather than any descriptive title. An AI agent browsing or summarizing this page by title or URL metadata would be deceived into reporting it as a Google page, constituting an indirect prompt injection via metadata manipulation targeting agentic crawlers and AI-assisted browsing tools. (location: page.html: line 3, <title>https://google.com/</title>)
hidden content
The 'infoDiv' element containing the detailed explanation text (including Terms of Service links and support links attributed to Google) is hidden by default via inline style 'display:none'. This content is not visible to casual users but is parsed by crawlers and AI agents, and reinforces the Google impersonation narrative invisibly. (location: page.html: line 26, <div id='infoDiv' style='display:none;'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/preferencenail.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
preferencenail.com currently scores 24/100 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.
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.