context safety score
A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses eval() with String.fromCharCode — common obfuscation
obfuscated code
Heavy JSFuck/bracket-notation obfuscation used inside eval() calls within the values() function to construct strings at runtime, concealing the actual cookie values and logic from static analysis. The obfuscated eval expressions build strings character-by-character using array coercions, making it impossible to determine the true payload without execution. (location: page.html:36 (second <script> block, values() function, eval() arguments))
obfuscated code
Hex-indexed array shuffling obfuscator pattern (_0x4541, _0x2d84, _0x37209d, etc.) is used to hide the XOR-based string encoding function E(). This is a classic JavaScript obfuscation pattern (similar to tools like javascript-obfuscator) used to disguise code intent and evade static scanners. (location: page.html:41 (second <script> block, _0x4541 array and IIFE obfuscation pattern))
hidden content
Both the English and Persian page sections are rendered with the CSS class 'error-section--hide' and only one is revealed at runtime based on timezone detection. Content is conditionally hidden from non-Tehran-timezone visitors, allowing different experiences to be served to different audiences without transparency. (location: page.html:1 (id='en' and id='fa' sections both contain 'error-section--hide' class))
social engineering
The page presents itself as a neutral 'Transferring to the website...' / 'در حال انتقال به سایت مورد نظر هستید...' holding page to lower user suspicion while running obfuscated JavaScript in the background before triggering location.reload(). This pattern is commonly used to silently fingerprint or cookie users before redirecting them. (location: page.html:1 (h2.error-section__subtitle--waiting text); page-text.txt:1)
malicious redirect
After a randomized 2000–3000ms delay, the page sets two cookies (__arcsjs and __arcsjsc) with values computed from obfuscated/XOR-encoded eval() output, then calls location.reload(). This reload-after-cookie-set pattern is a classic bot/challenge bypass fingerprinting mechanism but is also used in malicious redirect chains to gate access behind computed tokens before forwarding users to a hidden destination. (location: page.html:43-48 (DOMContentLoaded setTimeout block with document.cookie writes and location.reload()))
hidden content
The favicon link uses an unresolved template placeholder '#DOMAIN#' (href='//#DOMAIN#/favicon.ico'), indicating the page may be a template or intermediate staging page where the real destination domain is injected at runtime, obscuring the true target from static inspection. (location: page.html:1 (<link rel='icon' href='//#DOMAIN#/favicon.ico'>))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/talasea.irCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
talasea.ir 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.