context safety score
A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain snackvideo.in mimics the well-known 'Snack Video' short-form video platform (owned by Kuaishou). The .in TLD combined with the brand name is a common phishing pattern targeting users who mistype or are redirected from the legitimate service. (location: metadata.json: domain)
brand impersonation
The domain snackvideo.in impersonates the legitimate SnackVideo brand (snackvideo.com). Using an alternative TLD (.in instead of .com) to clone a recognized brand is a well-documented brand impersonation technique used for credential harvesting and malware distribution. (location: metadata.json: domain)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) yet the page was fetched, suggesting the site may operate over HTTP or use a deceptive redirect chain. Combined with an empty page body, this is consistent with a redirect-only or cloaked threat page that serves different content based on user-agent or referrer. (location: metadata.json: tls)
hidden content
The page HTML and visible text are both completely empty (0 bytes), yet the domain resolves. This is consistent with cloaked content delivery — serving blank pages to crawlers/scanners while redirecting real users to malicious payloads, or using JavaScript-only rendering to hide content from static analysis. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/snackvideo.inCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
snackvideo.in 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.