context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
malicious redirect
The page at t.cn (a known URL shortener) automatically redirects visitors to weibo.com via multiple chained redirects through login.sina.com.cn and passport.weibo.com without user consent or visible indication. The redirect chain uses window.location.replace() which overwrites browser history, preventing back-navigation. On error, users are force-redirected to weibo.com/login.php, potentially harvesting login sessions. (location: page.html:127-131, page.html:169, page.html:206, page.html:240)
credential harvesting
The visitor system collects device fingerprints (via passport.sinaimg.cn fingerprinting library), browser cookies (SRF cookie), tracking IDs (tid), and the navigator.webdriver flag to detect automated agents/bots. Session tokens (sub, subp, alt) are extracted from server responses and forwarded across domains via cross-domain SSO flows to login.sina.com.cn and passport.weibo.com. (location: page.html:10, page.html:41, page.html:47, page.html:66, page.html:143-144)
obfuscated code
The page contains mojibake (garbled multi-byte characters rendered as replacement characters) throughout the JavaScript comments, indicating the source was encoded in GB2312 (as declared in the Content-Type meta tag) but is being displayed/read in a different encoding. This obscures the true meaning of comments describing the surveillance and redirect logic. The meta charset is GB2312, a non-standard encoding choice for modern web pages that can cause security tool misinterpretation. (location: page.html:4, page.html:12, page.html:38, page.html:40, page.html:43-44)
prompt injection
The page uses eval() on server-returned content in the visitor_gray function: 'if (res) { eval(res); }'. Any agent or automated browser that processes this page will execute arbitrary server-controlled JavaScript, allowing the server operator to inject and run any code in the agent's browser context. This is a direct code injection vector targeting automated systems. (location: page.html:76-78)
social engineering
The page is titled 'Sina Visitor System' with no visible UI content — it presents as a blank/loading page while silently running tracking, fingerprinting, and redirection logic. Users and automated agents are given no indication of what data is being collected or where they will be redirected, constituting deceptive operation by design. (location: page.html:5, page.html:8)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/t.cnCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
t.cn currently scores 36/100 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.