context safety score
A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain 'prlhe04hotvwe7ts.com' is only 34 days old. Newly registered domains with random-looking names are a strong indicator of throwaway phishing infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: whois.domain_age_days=34)
phishing
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false). The site does not serve a valid HTTPS certificate, which is atypical for legitimate sites and consistent with hastily-deployed phishing pages or sites that redirect to a malicious payload without loading a full TLS session. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
brand impersonation
The domain 'prlhe04hotvwe7ts.com' consists of a random-looking alphanumeric string, a pattern commonly used to avoid brand-specific blocklists while hosting content that impersonates a known brand. The page content could not be retrieved (empty HTML/text), which may indicate cloaking or bot-detection evasion serving real content only to targeted victims. (location: metadata.json: domain=prlhe04hotvwe7ts.com)
hidden content
The page HTML, visible text, and hidden text files are all empty despite the domain being active and indexed for scanning. This is consistent with cloaking techniques where content is withheld from crawlers/scanners and only served to targeted human victims or specific user-agents. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/prlhe04hotvwe7ts.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
prlhe04hotvwe7ts.com currently scores 49/100 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.