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
brand impersonation
The domain 'spo-msedge.net' combines 'spo' (SharePoint Online abbreviation) and 'msedge' (Microsoft Edge browser) to impersonate Microsoft products/services. The .net TLD and hyphenated construction are classic typosquatting/brand-impersonation patterns targeting Microsoft's ecosystem. (location: domain: spo-msedge.net)
phishing
The domain construction (spo-msedge.net) is consistent with a phishing infrastructure targeting Microsoft 365/SharePoint Online users. TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), indicating the site may be down, newly stood up, or serving content only under specific conditions — behavior common in targeted phishing campaigns. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
Combination of a Microsoft-impersonating domain (SharePoint Online + Edge branding) with no valid TLS certificate and empty page content is consistent with a credential harvesting page that may only activate under specific conditions (referrer, user-agent, geolocation, or prior redirect chain) to evade automated scanning. (location: domain: spo-msedge.net; metadata.json: tls fields)
malicious redirect
The page returned empty HTML and text content despite the domain being reachable enough for metadata collection. This blank-page-on-direct-access pattern is commonly used in redirect chains where the malicious payload is only delivered after a specific referrer or redirect token is present, hiding the true destination from scanners. (location: page.html: empty; page-text.txt: empty)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/spo-msedge.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
spo-msedge.net 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.