Is randewoo.ru safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
38/100

context safety score

A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

8 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 conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

malicious redirect

Page executes a JavaScript-driven redirect via `window.location.href = construct_utm_uri(disable_utm)` inside a setTimeout after 1 second. The destination is dynamically constructed from cookie values (`__js_p_`) and the document referrer, meaning the redirect target is opaque and controlled server-side through cookie injection. This is a classic cloaking/redirect gate used to deliver different content to bots vs. real users. (location: page.html:44)

high

obfuscated code

The function `get_jhash` performs a deliberately expensive computational loop (1,677,696 iterations) to generate a hash value stored in the `__jhash_` cookie. This pattern is used as a bot-detection/proof-of-work challenge to filter out automated scanners and serve malicious payloads only to verified human browsers that survive the check. (location: page.html:7)

high

hidden content

The page renders no visible content to users or crawlers — only a centered 66x66 pixel loading GIF (base64-encoded inline image) is shown. All functional logic is hidden inside JavaScript. The `<meta name='robots' content='noindex, noarchive'>` tag explicitly prevents archiving and indexing, a strong signal of intentional concealment of the page's true purpose. (location: page.html:1)

medium

social engineering

The page harvests the visitor's User-Agent string (`navigator.userAgent`) and stores it in the `__jua_` cookie, then forwards it along with referrer-derived UTM parameters. This fingerprinting of the visitor's browser environment before redirect is characteristic of traffic distribution systems (TDS) used to route victims to targeted scam or phishing pages based on device/browser profile. (location: page.html:43)

medium

malicious redirect

The `noindex, noarchive` robots meta tag is combined with the redirect gate to prevent Google Cache and web archives (Wayback Machine) from capturing the page's true behavior, making forensic analysis and takedown significantly harder. This is a deliberate evasion technique. (location: page.html:1)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/randewoo.ru

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is randewoo.ru safe for AI agents to use?

randewoo.ru currently scores 38/100 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.