Is serverdata.net 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

8 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

cloaking

Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay

critical

credential harvesting

A script at the bottom of the page (line 263-267 in page.html) fires whenever the page is loaded on a domain other than 'cp.serverdata.net'. It silently exfiltrates the current page URL and the HTTP referrer to a third-party domain '3700b0ecae6c.o3n.io' via a hidden image beacon: `image.gif?l=<current_url>&r=<referrer>`. This leaks visitor context and can capture credential-bearing URLs or session tokens passed in query parameters to an unknown external endpoint. (location: page.html:263-267)

high

malicious redirect

The hidden image beacon exfiltrates data to '3700b0ecae6c.o3n.io', a domain with a random-looking subdomain pattern typical of tracking/C2 infrastructure. The URL encodes both the current page location and referrer, enabling the operator to track users and redirect or replay harvested session data. This domain has no apparent relationship to serverdata.net. (location: page.html:264-266)

high

hidden content

The Google Analytics tracking block (lines 133-186 in page.html) is wrapped in a `<span style='display: none'>` element, hiding it from visual inspection. While GA scripts are common, embedding them in a hidden span—alongside the credential-exfiltration beacon—is atypical and may be used to obscure the full set of tracking/exfiltration code from casual review. (location: page.html:133)

high

credential harvesting

The login form (page.html:64-131) collects email/login and password fields with `autocomplete='off'` and no visible action attribute, meaning the form POST destination is ambiguous. The hidden field 'returnUrl' is set to 'https://cp.serverdata.net/Portal/User/Login', which could be manipulated to redirect users post-authentication to an attacker-controlled URL. (location: page.html:64-131)

medium

phishing

The page presents a generic 'Control Panel' login form on the domain 'serverdata.net' (not the canonical 'cp.serverdata.net'). The mismatch between the serving domain and the expected domain (referenced in the returnUrl hidden field and the domain-check script) suggests this page may be served from a cloned or unauthorized host to harvest credentials from users who expect to be on cp.serverdata.net. (location: page.html:71, page.html:263)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/serverdata.net

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is serverdata.net safe for AI agents to use?

serverdata.net 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.