context safety score
A score of 36/100 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
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
brand impersonation
The page is served from the-ozone-project.com but all canonical URLs, og:url, og:site_name, structured data, internal links, images, scripts, and stylesheets reference ozoneproject.com. The scanned domain (the-ozone-project.com) is impersonating the legitimate Ozone Project brand (ozoneproject.com) by mirroring its content while operating under a different, hyphenated domain name. (location: metadata.json domain=the-ozone-project.com vs page.html canonical href=https://ozoneproject.com/, og:url=https://ozoneproject.com/, og:site_name=Ozone)
malicious redirect
All navigation links, buttons, and resource URLs in the page point to ozoneproject.com rather than the-ozone-project.com. A visitor landing on the-ozone-project.com is served a full mirror of ozoneproject.com; any interaction (clicking links, submitting forms) redirects or posts data to the legitimate domain or could be intercepted. This mirror-site pattern is a classic phishing infrastructure technique. (location: page.html lines 829-847, 876, 910, 976 — all href values point to ozoneproject.com)
phishing
The-ozone-project.com hosts a pixel-perfect clone of ozoneproject.com's homepage. The site includes a live contact form (WPForms ID 923) that collects name, email, and message from visitors who believe they are on the legitimate Ozone Project website. Form action posts to '/' on the impersonating domain, meaning submitted data is received by the-ozone-project.com, not by the real company. (location: page.html lines 1222-1237, form action='/' data-token present, field_1=email, field_0=name, field_2=message)
credential harvesting
The contact form on the impersonating domain captures user name and email address submissions. While framed as a general enquiry form, any credentials or personal data entered by users who mistake this site for the legitimate ozoneproject.com are harvested by the operator of the-ozone-project.com. (location: page.html lines 1222-1237, wpforms-form-923, fields: name (field_0), email (field_1), message (field_2))
hidden content
A honeypot field ('Email of your') is present in the contact form: field_4-container is styled with position:absolute, height:1px, width:1px, z-index:-1000, overflow:hidden, and the input has visibility:hidden. While this is a standard WPForms anti-spam honeypot, on an impersonating domain it also serves to silently capture bot-submitted data or mask additional data collection from casual inspection. (location: page.html lines 1223-1236, #wpforms-923-field_4-container with inline style making it invisible)
social engineering
The impersonating site reproduces the complete brand identity of Ozone Project — logo, color scheme, publisher partner logos (News UK, The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc.), staff names (CEO Damon Reeve, CRO Craig Tuck), office addresses, and registered company number — to create full trust with visitors. This level of brand reproduction is designed to deceive users into believing they are interacting with the legitimate company. (location: page.html lines 853-887 (welcome/brand copy), lines 1243-1260 (office addresses, registered company number 11471303), page-text.txt lines 259, 421-472)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/the-ozone-project.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
the-ozone-project.com 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.