context safety score
A score of 38/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain s-microsoft.com is a typosquat/impersonation of microsoft.com. The 's-' prefix is a common evasion technique to mimic the legitimate Microsoft brand while using a distinct registrable domain, likely to deceive users or AI agents into trusting the domain as an official Microsoft property. (location: domain: s-microsoft.com)
phishing
The domain s-microsoft.com combines Microsoft brand impersonation with a failed TLS connection (connected=false, cert_valid=false), which is consistent with a phishing infrastructure that may not yet be fully deployed or is serving content over HTTP only. The combination of a Microsoft-lookalike domain and invalid/missing TLS certificate strongly indicates phishing intent. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false, domain=s-microsoft.com)
credential harvesting
Domains impersonating Microsoft (s-microsoft.com) are frequently used as credential harvesting pages targeting Microsoft account credentials (Azure, Office 365, Outlook). The domain structure and brand impersonation pattern are consistent with known Microsoft credential phishing campaigns. (location: domain: s-microsoft.com)
malicious redirect
The hosting reputation is listed as Unknown and TLS is not connected, which may indicate the domain is parked or used as a redirect intermediary. Domains of this pattern are commonly used to redirect victims to downstream phishing or malware payloads. (location: metadata.json: hosting.reputation=Unknown, tls.connected=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/s-microsoft.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
s-microsoft.com 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.