Is sat.co.id 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
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

10 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

high

exfiltration

JavaScript intercepts form submissions to exfiltrate data

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

critical

brand impersonation

The page is served from sat.co.id but fully impersonates alfamart.co.id, reproducing Alfamart's complete branding, title ('Alfamart, Minimarket Indonesia'), logos, navigation, content, and all asset URLs (CSS, JS, images) loaded from alfamart.co.id. This constitutes domain-based brand impersonation of Indonesia's largest minimarket chain. (location: page.html:30-37, metadata.json (domain: sat.co.id vs alfamart.co.id throughout))

high

credential harvesting

The page contains forms collecting phone numbers (No. Handphone with +62 prefix) and member RT IDs, submitted via AJAX POST to https://alfamart.co.id/cek-program. On a domain impersonating Alfamart (sat.co.id), these forms could harvest member credentials and phone numbers from users who believe they are on the legitimate site. (location: page.html:1630-1697, page.html:2532-2538)

high

credential harvesting

A newsletter subscription form collects email addresses and submits them via AJAX POST to https://alfamart.co.id/news-letter. Served from the impersonating domain sat.co.id, this form harvests user email addresses under false pretenses. (location: page.html:2263-2278, page.html:2421-2424)

medium

hidden content

A CSRF authentication token 'h3WMThpaoiFJjqfNK9Jn9pBfYHUevs08CQztiOZn' is hardcoded in plaintext in two separate inline JavaScript blocks. This token is exposed in the page source and could be harvested by an attacker or AI agent scraping the page to forge authenticated requests. (location: page.html:801, page.html:2424, page.html:2538)

low

hidden content

An untranslated template key 'static.nav_3_6' appears as a visible navigation link in the GCG (Corporate Governance) menu slide, pointing to /gcg/organ. This raw key suggests a content management system injection artifact or incomplete template rendering that may indicate server-side template manipulation. (location: page.html:324)

low

malicious redirect

Multiple modal info blocks contain a misspelled URL 'htpp://alfa.id/alfagiftapp' (missing the 's' in https) referencing a URL shortener link (alfa.id). A non-HTTPS shortened URL in official-looking content can redirect users to unverified destinations. Appears in at least three modal bodies. (location: page.html:1912, page.html:1951, page.html:2131, page.html:2164)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/sat.co.id

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is sat.co.id safe for AI agents to use?

sat.co.id 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.