context safety score
A score of 44/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for serverh1ub.ir — the site cannot be reached over HTTPS, suggesting the domain may be parked, sinkholed, or serving content only over plaintext HTTP, which is consistent with phishing infrastructure that strips TLS to intercept credentials. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
brand impersonation
The domain 'serverh1ub.ir' uses a homoglyph/typosquat pattern replacing the letter 'u' in 'serverHub' (or 'GitHub') with the digit '1' — i.e. 'h1ub' instead of 'hub'. This is a classic brand impersonation technique targeting developer platforms such as GitHub or ServerHub to lure users into credential submission. (location: metadata.json: domain=serverh1ub.ir)
phishing
The domain serverh1ub.ir is registered under the .ir (Iran) ccTLD with no TLS connectivity and an unverifiable hosting reputation. The combination of a typosquatted developer-brand domain, no valid TLS, and an empty page body is consistent with a phishing staging site or a domain used in targeted spearphishing campaigns against developers. (location: metadata.json: domain=serverh1ub.ir, tls.connected=false, hosting.reputation=Unknown)
hidden content
The page body (page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt) is entirely empty despite the domain being live in metadata. This may indicate cloaking — serving empty content to crawlers/scanners while delivering malicious payloads to targeted human visitors via user-agent or IP-based filtering. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/serverh1ub.irCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
serverh1ub.ir currently scores 44/100 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.