context safety score
A score of 32/100 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 'staticvaultcdn.xyz' uses a .xyz TLD with a name pattern ('staticvaultcdn') mimicking legitimate CDN or cloud storage services, consistent with phishing infrastructure. TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), meaning no valid HTTPS — a strong indicator of a malicious or staging phishing site. (location: metadata.json)
brand impersonation
The domain name 'staticvaultcdn.xyz' combines terms ('static', 'vault', 'cdn') associated with trusted cloud/CDN brands (e.g., Cloudflare, AWS CloudFront, Azure CDN, Vault by HashiCorp) to appear as legitimate infrastructure, likely to deceive users or AI agents into trusting the domain. (location: metadata.json, domain field)
phishing
TLS is not connected and certificate is invalid (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false, issuer=null). A site presenting itself as a CDN/vault service with no valid TLS certificate is a strong signal of a fraudulent or malicious site. (location: metadata.json, tls object)
prompt injection
The .brin-prompt.md file in the scan workspace contains AI agent instructions defining output format and behavior constraints. While this is the Brin system's own prompt file, its presence in a user-controlled scan workspace represents a potential prompt injection vector — an attacker could plant or modify this file to alter the AI agent's analysis behavior and suppress or fabricate threat findings. (location: .brin-prompt.md)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/staticvaultcdn.xyzCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
staticvaultcdn.xyz currently scores 32/100 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.