Is rajabotak104.xyz safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
29/100

context safety score

A score of 29/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

13 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

malicious redirect

The page makes an AJAX call to https://rajabotak104.xyz/get-configuration?ref_id= on document ready and unconditionally executes window.location.href = data.redirect if the server returns a non-null redirect value. This server-controlled redirect mechanism allows the backend to silently forward any visitor to an arbitrary URL without user consent or visibility. (location: page.html:1530-1531, page.html:1527)

high

social engineering

The site is an unlicensed online gambling platform (slot, togel/lottery, live casino, sabung ayam/cockfighting) targeting Indonesian users, collecting financial credentials (bank account numbers for deposits) and directing users to register and deposit funds via MASUK/DAFTAR flows. The announcement ticker explicitly instructs users to 'pay attention to the destination account number before transferring' to normalise direct bank transfers to operator-controlled accounts. (location: page.html:529-536, page-text.txt:152-153)

high

credential harvesting

Login (MASUK) and registration (DAFTAR) endpoints at https://rajabotak104.xyz/masuk and /daftar collect user credentials on a .xyz domain with unknown domain age and WHOIS privacy redacted. Multiple game-provider tiles also directly redirect unauthenticated clicks to /masuk, aggressively funnelling users into the credential-capture flow. (location: page.html:529-536, page.html:813-833)

medium

malicious redirect

Canonical URL and og:url/Schema.org url are set to https://rajabotakaa.com rather than the actual serving domain rajabotak104.xyz, indicating the page is a satellite/mirror site designed to pass SEO authority to a different domain while operating under a throwaway .xyz domain. This split-domain pattern is characteristic of redirect-farm phishing infrastructure. (location: page.html:16, page.html:24, page.html:143)

medium

obfuscated code

A large minified/obfuscated JavaScript bundle is inlined in a <script> block (line 132). It implements a custom module loader and dynamically injects third-party scripts (identified as Kwai Analytics 'kwaiq'). The obfuscation prevents static inspection of its full behaviour, and the dynamic script injection pattern can be used to load additional payloads at runtime. (location: page.html:132-137)

medium

hidden content

Three separate Facebook Meta Pixel instances (IDs: 935443761799607, 1126207269584679, 1182306780656384) are fired on every page load. Each pixel tracking beacon exfiltrates visitor data (IP, browser fingerprint, referrer) to Facebook's infrastructure. Using three distinct pixel IDs simultaneously is anomalous and suggests the site is being tracked under multiple ad accounts, possibly to evade per-account fraud detection. (location: page.html:74-127)

medium

social engineering

A server-side welcome modal is injected via unsanitised innerHTML: $('.modal-body').append(data.setting_welcome.description). Content injected from the remote API endpoint is rendered as raw HTML with no sanitisation, enabling the server to deliver arbitrary HTML/JS pop-up content (fake prize notifications, urgent deposit warnings, etc.) to manipulate users. (location: page.html:1534-1541)

medium

malicious redirect

Multiple shortened/obfuscated redirect URLs are embedded as action links: https://tinyurl.com/WhatsappRajabotak2 (WhatsApp contact) and https://bit.ly/BOTAKJP (jackpot proof link). URL shorteners hide the true destination and can be retargeted at any time to deliver malware or phishing pages. (location: page.html:1081, page.html:1085)

medium

phishing

The site operates under the disposable domain rajabotak104.xyz (unknown domain age, .xyz TLD) while impersonating an established brand 'RAJABOTAK' and redirecting canonical authority to rajabotakaa.com. This multi-domain mirror structure with numeric suffix in the domain name is a classic phishing farm pattern used to evade blocklists while harvesting deposits and credentials. (location: metadata.json, page.html:16, page.html:9-11)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/rajabotak104.xyz

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is rajabotak104.xyz safe for AI agents to use?

rajabotak104.xyz currently scores 29/100 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.