Is therapservices.net safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
39/100

context safety score

A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
55
content
7
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

hidden instruction

high hidden content ratio detected in DOM

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

malicious redirect

A geo-redirect script loads an external resource from g10102301085.co — a suspicious, non-standard TLD domain — at page load. It sets body opacity to 0 (hiding the page), calls out to this third-party with the referrer URL and current window URL, and conditionally delays restoring visibility by 5 seconds if a redirect is triggered. This is a classic cloaking/redirect injection pattern where users may be silently redirected based on geo or referrer conditions. (location: page.html:8-17 (inline <script> in <head>, src='https://g10102301085.co/gr?id=-O5HiBcdMtWi56ecnmu4'))

medium

hidden content

The page initially sets body opacity to 0.0 via an injected style tag ('georedirect-O5HiBcdMtWi56ecnmu4style'), hiding all content from users until the geo-redirect script completes or times out after 8 seconds. This opacity cloaking technique is used to mask page content during redirect evaluation and can hide malicious content from scanners. (location: page.html:9-16 (body{opacity:0.0 !important} injected style, restored conditionally after redirect check))

low

hidden content

Multiple geo-targeted content spans use style='display:none' and are revealed only by the GeoTargetly script based on visitor location (content IDs for CA, NY, DE, ND, NE, RI, TN, SC, NM, SD). While used for legitimate geo-personalization on this site, the pattern of large hidden content blocks controlled by external geo-targeting scripts represents a hidden content vector that could be abused. (location: page.html:5771-5860 (geotargetlygeocontent spans with display:none))

medium

obfuscated code

The geo-redirect script uses obfuscated single-letter variable names (g, e, o, id, t, a, r, ge, tl, y, s) in an IIFE, sends the visitor's referrer and current URL to an external domain (g10102301085.co), and conditionally triggers a redirect. The domain name itself (g10102301085.co) is a numeric-label .co domain with no clear legitimate owner, consistent with malicious redirect infrastructure. (location: page.html:8-17 (IIFE geo-redirect script in <head>))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/therapservices.net

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.

Is therapservices.net safe for AI agents to use?

therapservices.net currently scores 39/100 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this domain score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this domain?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.