context safety score
A score of 37/100 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
cloaking
Page uses meta refresh redirect
brand impersonation
Page title is 'Standard Chartered Bank' and favicon is loaded from http://www.standardchartered.com/favicon.ico, but the serving domain is sc.com — a short domain that is not the official standardchartered.com. This mimics the bank's brand from a different domain. (location: page.html:3,6)
malicious redirect
Meta refresh with content='0;URL=en/index.html' performs an immediate (0-second) redirect to a sub-path, bouncing visitors before they can inspect the landing page. Combined with brand impersonation context, this is consistent with a phishing redirect chain. (location: page.html:7)
phishing
The combination of Standard Chartered Bank branding, immediate meta-refresh redirect, and serving from sc.com rather than standardchartered.com is a classic phishing site pattern designed to lure banking customers. (location: page.html:3-8)
hidden content
A script tag with a highly obfuscated src path '/hold-to-auouse-vs-Sconcena-Seruice-Sey-haue-to-m' is loaded asynchronously in the <head>. The path is not a recognizable resource and appears deliberately garbled, consistent with a hidden or covert script payload. (location: page.html:3)
obfuscated code
Script src path '/hold-to-auouse-vs-Sconcena-Seruice-Sey-haue-to-m' uses nonsensical, obfuscated naming inconsistent with any legitimate asset path. This is indicative of an attempt to disguise the script's purpose from casual inspection or automated scanners. (location: page.html:3)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/sc.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
sc.com currently scores 37/100 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.