Is rt.ru safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
50
content
17
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

obfuscated code

The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using character-code arithmetic (String.fromCharCode with offset arithmetic), hex-encoded strings, and self-modifying window property overrides. The 'bobcmn' and 'failureConfig' variables contain hex-encoded payloads, and the main script block uses multi-layered obfuscation to conceal its true behavior, including bot/automation detection and dynamic function replacement. (location: page.html: <script> block inside <APM_DO_NOT_TOUCH>, lines 6-20 of page-text.txt)

medium

obfuscated code

The 'failureConfig' window variable is a hex-encoded string that decodes to: 'Roops....something went wrong.... your support id is: %DOSL7.challenge.support_id%.' This encodes a DDoS-protection challenge failure message, concealing the actual error template from plain-text inspection. (location: page.html: window["failureConfig"] assignment in obfuscated script block)

medium

hidden content

A Yandex Metrika tracking pixel is loaded via an offscreen image (position:absolute; left:-9999px) and a full analytics script is injected, silently tracking all user interactions including click maps, link tracking, and bounce rate for Yandex counter ID 88898237. This constitutes covert behavioral surveillance of visitors without visible disclosure. (location: page.html: <noscript> Yandex.Metrika div and inline script at end of body; page-hidden.txt lines 1-2)

medium

social engineering

The visible page content (Russian) tells users their site is unavailable when using VPN services and asks them to disable VPN or submit a CAPTCHA form to 'bypass blocking.' This pressures users to disable privacy tools (VPN) and submit interaction data, a social engineering pattern that manipulates user behavior under a false technical pretext. (location: page-text.txt lines 34-48; page.html body div)

low

prompt injection

The page is served by rt.ru (RT, Russian state media). The page instructs users (and potentially AI agents crawling the page) that the site is 'unavailable with VPN' and requests CAPTCHA submission. An AI agent processing this page as instructions could be directed to disable anonymization, submit form data, or treat the CAPTCHA bypass message as a legitimate action directive. (location: page-text.txt lines 34-48; page.html body)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is rt.ru safe for AI agents to use?

rt.ru currently scores 40/100 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.