context safety score
A score of 48/100 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
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
obfuscated code
The 'mng_admiral_script' block uses double-nested percent-encoding obfuscation (e.g., decodeURI(decodeURI('%2561%2564m%69%72%25%361l'))) to conceal the string 'admiral' and dynamically loads an external script from 'thebestpaints.com' — a domain entirely unrelated to sun-sentinel.com. The obfuscation obscures both the library name and the third-party script source, a technique associated with supply-chain injection and malvertising. (location: page.html line 17, <script id='mng_admiral_script'>)
malicious redirect
A script is silently loaded from https://thebestpaints.com/assets/kdvtzcx_627ww-prod.js — a third-party domain ('thebestpaints.com') with no evident relationship to sun-sentinel.com or its known ad tech vendors. This pattern is consistent with a compromised or injected ad script performing drive-by payload delivery or malicious redirection. (location: page.html line 17, A.src='https://thebestpaints.com/assets/kdvtzcx_627ww-prod.js')
obfuscated code
A second obfuscated function in the same 'mng_admiral_script' block uses double percent-encoding to hide the string 'googletag' and a localStorage key, then reads stored ad targeting data (lgk array) and calls googletag pubads().setTargeting(). The obfuscation of standard ad API calls is anomalous and may be used to evade security scanners while exfiltrating or manipulating ad targeting state. (location: page.html line 18, second IIFE in <script id='mng_admiral_script'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/sun-sentinel.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
sun-sentinel.com currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.