Is rubias19.com safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
49/100

context safety score

A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
70
content
27
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

obfuscated code

A heavily obfuscated JavaScript block is present, using URI-encoded strings, character-code arithmetic (Caesar-cipher-style rotation), and array-index slicing to conceal its logic. The script is tagged with data-cfasync="false" to bypass Cloudflare integrity checks and dynamically assembles and executes code whose purpose cannot be determined without full de-obfuscation. This pattern is consistent with ad-fraud, fingerprinting, or malicious redirect payloads. (location: page.html lines 1730 (also duplicated in page-text.txt line 1389))

high

malicious redirect

A third-party script is loaded from bundlemoviepumice.com — an unrecognised, suspicious domain with a randomly-constructed name typical of malvertising infrastructure. It is loaded asynchronously with onerror/onload callbacks (vymekyr) that are themselves defined inside the obfuscated block, meaning the redirect/payload logic is fully controlled by the external domain. (location: page.html line 1731)

medium

malicious redirect

A third-party interstitial ad script is loaded from a.pemsrv.com (data-idzone 4135328) with data-ad_trigger_method="2" configured to fire pop-under or interstitial redirects after a set number of clicks. pemsrv.com is a known pop/push ad network frequently associated with unwanted redirects to scam and adult-offer pages. (location: page.html lines 491-497)

medium

social engineering

The age-verification disclaimer modal bundles cookie consent together with the adult content gate: clicking 'SI, ENTRAR' simultaneously confirms age AND grants blanket cookie consent for all purposes. This dark-pattern design coerces users into broad data-collection consent they may not intend to give, under pressure of the content gate. (location: page.html lines 1655-1680)

low

social engineering

The 'No' button on the age-verification / cookie-consent modal redirects users to https://www.google.com/ rather than simply closing or leaving the page. This is a deceptive UX pattern that disguises a third-party redirect as a simple refusal action, potentially misleading automated agents or users about where the link leads. (location: page.html line 1668)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/rubias19.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is rubias19.com safe for AI agents to use?

rubias19.com currently scores 49/100 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.

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.