Is rttv.ru safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
39/100

context safety score

A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
95
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

critical

brand impersonation

Page hosted on rttv.ru (RT/TV-Novosti domain) displays a fully cloned Microsoft Outlook Web Access login interface, including the Microsoft Exchange copyright notice '© 2022 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.' and Microsoft OWA logo assets. The actual operator is 'Autonomous Nonprofit Organization TV-Novosti' (RT state media), not Microsoft. (location: page.html:797, page.html:830, page-text.txt:63,96)

critical

credential harvesting

The page presents a fake Microsoft Outlook Web Access login form (username and password fields with labels 'js-input-text' and 'js-input-password') on a non-Microsoft domain (rttv.ru). JavaScript prepares password input placeholders in both English and Russian, strongly indicating the form is designed to collect Microsoft credentials from unsuspecting users. (location: page.html:846-930, page-text.txt:132-133)

critical

phishing

The page title is 'RT: Outlook Web Access' and the entire layout mimics Microsoft OWA on a Russian state-media domain (rttv.ru). It includes BIG-IP F5 session error messaging to make the fake login appear as a legitimate expired-session flow, a common phishing tactic to re-prompt credential entry. (location: page.html:13, page.html:811, page-text.txt:77)

high

social engineering

The page displays a BIG-IP/F5 session error message ('BIG-IP can not find session information in the request...cookies are disabled...click the link below to continue') to create urgency and legitimacy, guiding victims to re-enter credentials. This is a social engineering technique that exploits trusted enterprise infrastructure branding. (location: page.html:811, page-text.txt:77)

high

brand impersonation

The page impersonates F5 BIG-IP APM (Access Policy Manager) infrastructure by replicating its exact session-expiry error message and UI patterns, including F5_PWS cookie handling and ActiveX/UPlugin control insertion code identical to genuine F5 APM portals. (location: page.html:673-674, page.html:724-730, page.html:811)

medium

hidden content

Multiple UI elements are rendered with 'visibility:hidden' by default (sessionDIV, newSessionDIV) and revealed conditionally via JavaScript. The sessionDIV injects cookie-derived session reference numbers directly into innerHTML without sanitization, and newSessionDIV is conditionally shown based on browser environment detection. (location: page.html:807, page.html:817, page.html:709-713)

medium

social engineering

The JavaScript detects the user's browser language (ru-RU or ru) and dynamically substitutes all visible text with Russian translations, including credential field labels and privacy policy links pointing to rt.com. This targeting of Russian-speaking users suggests a spear-phishing campaign aimed at RT/TV-Novosti employees or Russian Microsoft users. (location: page.html:843-931, page-text.txt:111-141)

API

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

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is rttv.ru safe for AI agents to use?

rttv.ru currently scores 39/100 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.