context safety score
A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
obfuscated code
The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using a string-array rotation/shuffle pattern with hex-encoded offsets (e.g., g(a,b), function f() with encoded string table, while(!![]) loop). This anti-analysis technique is characteristic of malicious bot-challenge bypass pages used to fingerprint visitors, exfiltrate browser data, or conditionally serve malicious payloads to targeted users while showing a benign loader to crawlers. (location: page.html: inline <script> block containing function g(), function f(), bbc6cf0, and the self-invoking async IIFE)
obfuscated code
The obfuscated script computes a SHA-256-like hash (bbc6cf0 function) of a value derived from 'cjs' and sends it via XMLHttpRequest POST to 'jsChallengeUrl'. On HTTP 200 response, it performs window.location.replace(uri), triggering a client-side redirect to an opaque destination URL. Both 'jsChallengeUrl' and 'uri' are resolved at runtime from obfuscated sources, making the redirect target unverifiable statically. (location: page.html: async IIFE at end of inline <script> — xhr.open(), xhr.onload(), window.location.replace(uri))
malicious redirect
The page unconditionally redirects the visitor's browser to a runtime-resolved URI (window.location.replace(uri)) after posting a computed challenge token to a server-controlled endpoint. The destination URL is obfuscated and determined server-side, enabling conditional redirection to phishing, malware, or gambling sites depending on the visitor profile. The meta http-equiv='refresh' content='30' also provides a fallback reload mechanism. (location: page.html: window.location.replace(uri) inside xhr.onload handler; also <meta http-equiv='refresh' content='30'>)
social engineering
The page mimics a legitimate browser security check ('Checking your browser before accessing. Just a moment...') identical in style to Cloudflare's IUAM (I'm Under Attack Mode) interstitial. This UI pattern is used to establish trust and encourage users to keep JavaScript enabled while the obfuscated payload executes fingerprinting and redirection logic. (location: page.html: <title>, <h1>, and spinner UI; page-text.txt visible text)
hidden content
The meta tag 'robots: noindex, nofollow' instructs search engines and crawlers not to index the page or follow its links, suppressing visibility of the page's true content and redirect targets from security scanners and search indexers. This is commonly used to hide malicious intermediary pages from automated detection. (location: page.html: <meta name='robots' content='noindex,nofollow'>)
obfuscated code
An external script is loaded from '/hcdn-cgi/jschallenge' — a path on the same host that supplies runtime values (including 'cjs', 'jsChallengeUrl', and 'uri') used by the inline obfuscated code. This server-controlled script injection allows the operator to dynamically alter redirect targets and challenge logic without modifying the static HTML, evading static analysis. (location: page.html: <script src='/hcdn-cgi/jschallenge'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/sattamatkadpbosskuber.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
sattamatkadpbosskuber.net 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.
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.