Is rarbg.to safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
27/100

context safety score

A score of 27/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
70
content
0
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation

critical

obfuscated code

The page contains a heavily obfuscated JavaScript block using hex-encoded string arrays, variable name mangling (_0x1a2b, _0x2a8f, _0x4e3d, etc.), and a base64-encoded redirect URL. The decoded URL is https://kofeslos.com/go/2555332 — an unknown third-party affiliate/redirect domain. The obfuscation is designed to hide the redirect destination from static analysis. (location: page.html:<script> block, line 12)

critical

malicious redirect

The obfuscated script decodes the base64 string 'aHR0cHM6Ly9rb2Zlc2xvcy5jb20vZ28vMjU1NTMzMg==' to 'https://kofeslos.com/go/2555332' and executes window.location.replace(), window.location.href assignment, and window.location.assign() in sequence (with 100ms and 500ms delays) to forcibly redirect visitors to this third-party URL. This is a classic malicious redirect chain using multiple fallback methods. (location: page.html:<script> block, line 12 — window.location.replace, .href, .assign calls)

high

hidden content

The page body contains only a bare <div id='root'></div> with no visible content, while all functional behavior is embedded in a single obfuscated script tag. The meta tag 'robots: noindex,noarchive,nofollow' suppresses crawling and archiving, hiding the redirect behavior from search engines and web archives. The page presents no legitimate content to users. (location: page.html: <meta name='robots' content='noindex,noarchive,nofollow'> and <body> with empty #root div)

high

social engineering

The domain rarbg.to impersonates the well-known (now defunct) RARBG torrent site to attract users who type or search for the original site, then silently redirects them to a third-party URL (kofeslos.com/go/2555332) without any user interaction or consent. This leverages brand recognition of the defunct RARBG to funnel traffic. (location: metadata.json: domain=rarbg.to; page.html: redirect to https://kofeslos.com/go/2555332)

high

brand impersonation

The domain rarbg.to uses the RARBG brand — a well-known torrent indexer that shut down in May 2023. Registering or operating this domain post-shutdown to redirect users exploits residual user trust and brand recognition of the original RARBG service, constituting brand impersonation. (location: metadata.json: domain=rarbg.to, url=https://rarbg.to)

medium

obfuscated code

The script includes anti-devtools detection logic: it checks if (window.outerWidth - window.innerWidth > 160 || window.outerHeight - window.innerHeight > 160) and returns early, preventing the redirect from executing when browser developer tools are open. This is an evasion technique to avoid analysis. (location: page.html:<script> block, line 12 — outerWidth/innerWidth and outerHeight/innerHeight comparison)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/rarbg.to

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is rarbg.to safe for AI agents to use?

rarbg.to currently scores 27/100 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.