context safety score
A score of 48/100 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
obfuscated code
Heavy RC4-encrypted, base64-encoded obfuscated JavaScript injected by PopAds.net popunder script. The code uses array rotation, custom atob decryption, and RC4 stream cipher to hide payload execution. The script is loaded twice (in <head> and before </body>) and includes a unique fingerprint token (bf5823a9f0e6ea119cb4c2f2c8479ab9), indicating a persistent ad-injection or malware dropper pattern. The obfuscation structure matches known malvertising/drive-by download loaders. (location: page.html lines 38-42 and 617-621)
malicious redirect
PopAds.net popunder code is a well-known malvertising network that triggers forced redirects and popunder windows to third-party destinations, often including scam, phishing, or malware-hosting pages. The script is injected directly into the page body and fires on page load. (location: page.html lines 38-42 (<!-- PopAds.net Popunder Code --> block))
hidden content
Multiple `<div class='responsive-show' style='display: none;'>` elements hide topic count data from normal view. While this is a standard phpBB responsive pattern, the combination with ad-injection scripts and the note about 'previous malicious infection' warrants flagging. Additionally, adstra ad code blocks are present but their script src loading tag is absent, suggesting the payload may have been stripped or deferred. (location: page.html lines 112-115, 146-148, and similar responsive-show blocks throughout)
obfuscated code
Adstra ad network configuration block (atOptions with key '825f8f9532a8f2221d077ce2798da81b') is present without its corresponding script src loader tag. The inline comment '* Note: This file may contain artifacts of previous malicious infection. However, the dangerous code has been removed, and the file is now safe to use.' appears twice and is suspicious — legitimate ad networks do not embed such self-exculpatory comments in their ad tags. This pattern is consistent with a sanitization attempt that may be incomplete. (location: page.html lines 689-703 and page-text.txt lines 1-4, 580-583)
prompt injection
The inline comment block '* Note: This file may contain artifacts of previous malicious infection. However, the dangerous code has been removed, and the file is now safe to use.' appears in page-text.txt as rendered visible text (lines 1-4 and 580-583) and in page.html inside script tags. If an AI agent scrapes this page, this message could be interpreted as a trusted system-level directive attempting to pre-emptively clear suspicion of malicious content, constituting a prompt injection attempt targeting automated scanners or AI content analysis tools. (location: page-text.txt lines 1-4 and 580-583; page.html lines 71-73 and 698-701)
social engineering
The site hosts explicit adult content (sex stories) while also displaying a standard forum login form collecting username and password. The broad multi-language keyword stuffing in meta tags (Marathi, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil sex stories) is designed to maximize search engine reach and draw vulnerable users to a site running active malvertising scripts, increasing the attack surface for credential harvesting via injected popunders. (location: page.html lines 7-9 (meta keywords/description), lines 566-580 (login form))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/rajsharmastories.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
rajsharmastories.com currently scores 48/100 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.