Is sara777.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
42/100

context safety score

A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

social engineering

Site promotes Satta Matka gambling (illegal in India) framed as a legitimate data/chart analytics platform. Language like 'trusted platform', 'accurate & verified data', 'transparency & trust', and 'make better data-driven decisions' is used to normalize and legitimize illegal gambling activity, lowering user risk perception and encouraging financial participation. (location: page.html:1770-1871, page-text.txt:1364-1464)

high

social engineering

FAQ falsely claims 'Sara International N.V. Have Sub License In Isle Of Man. All Rights That Allows To Operate Software Worldwide.' This unverifiable licensing claim is used to build false legitimacy and trust with users to encourage deposits of real money into an online gambling operation. (location: page.html:1942-1944, page-text.txt:1529-1530)

medium

social engineering

Site prominently displays high payout ratios (e.g., '1 RS KA 10000 Rs' for Full Sangam) without any risk disclaimers, using financial reward framing to manipulate users into depositing money. The 'Download App' CTA is repeated throughout the page to funnel users into the gambling app. (location: page.html:356-447, page.html:301-304)

medium

hidden content

A Cloudflare challenge-platform script is injected via a hidden 1x1 pixel iframe (position:absolute, top:0, left:0, border:none, visibility:hidden) that dynamically creates and appends scripts to the document. While this is standard Cloudflare Bot Management, the obfuscated inline script executes inside a hidden iframe and injects additional scripts from '/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js', which is opaque to static analysis. (location: page.html:2466)

medium

social engineering

Meta description and page title claim 'Original & Official Website' and 'Trusted by players since 2001', and a FAQ entry specifically addresses 'Which is the original Sara777 website?' — tactics consistent with sites defending against or impersonating a competitor brand, suggesting possible brand dispute or clone ecosystem designed to confuse users about which site is legitimate. (location: page.html:5-7, page.html:2144-2153)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/sara777.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is sara777.com safe for AI agents to use?

sara777.com currently scores 42/100 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.