context safety score
A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
malicious redirect
JavaScript in page.html manipulates window.opener.location to redirect the parent tab to 'https://xxxshortvideos.com/out/pop' when conditions are met (opener exists, opener is hidden, same origin). This is a classic tabnapping/opener redirect attack that hijacks background tabs without user interaction. (location: page.html:241-249 (load_dom function inside <script nonce='dbcf109b02f7afd1a25dafe2238d01d2'>))
social engineering
All video thumbnail links use rel='opener', explicitly preserving the window.opener reference on outbound links. This is intentional and works in conjunction with the opener-redirect script to enable tabnapping of any tab that opened a video link. (location: page.html:295-510 (all <a> tags with rel='opener' on video thumbnails))
hidden content
An HTML comment at the bottom of the page leaks server-side metadata including a timestamp and a server/client IP address (34.96.45.115), which reveals infrastructure details that could aid targeted attacks. (location: page.html:582 (<!-- 0.009 2026-03-04 09:42:06 34.96.45.115 -->))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/sexhqxxx.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
sexhqxxx.com 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.
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.