context safety score
A score of 36/100 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
Domain 'telmexla.net.co' mimics Telmex, a major Latin American telecommunications brand owned by América Móvil. The use of 'telmex' as a subdomain prefix on a .net.co TLD (Colombia ccTLD) is a common typosquatting/brand-abuse pattern designed to deceive users into believing they are visiting a legitimate Telmex property. (location: domain: telmexla.net.co)
phishing
The domain impersonates a well-known telecom brand (Telmex) on a suspicious ccTLD (.net.co) with no valid TLS certificate (TLS connection failed, cert_valid=false), which is a strong indicator of a phishing infrastructure. Legitimate Telmex services operate on telmex.com with valid certificates. (location: domain: telmexla.net.co, metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
Combination of brand impersonation of a telecom provider, failed TLS, and unknown hosting reputation is consistent with credential harvesting pages targeting Telmex customers (login portals, account verification lures). The empty page content may indicate the payload is served conditionally (geo-fenced, user-agent gated, or already taken down) — a common evasion technique. (location: domain: telmexla.net.co, metadata.json)
hidden content
The page returned empty HTML and empty visible/hidden text despite the domain being reachable enough to be scanned. This suggests content cloaking or conditional serving — content may only be shown to targeted users, specific geolocations, or certain user-agents, hiding malicious content from crawlers and scanners. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/telmexla.net.coCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
telmexla.net.co 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.