Is therarbg.com safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
48/100

context safety score

A score of 48/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
80
content
27
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

brand impersonation

The site operates as 'The RarBg' (therarbg.com), directly impersonating the defunct RARBG torrent site brand. It replicates RARBG's name, logo, categories, and site structure to attract users who trust the original brand, which was shut down in 2023. (location: page.html:7, page.html:95, metadata.json:domain)

high

malicious redirect

A third-party JavaScript file is loaded from the unrecognized external domain 'finestmortifyfertility.com' (//finestmortifyfertility.com/6c/1f/3c/6c1f3c85c99e62eb028505b3f6b22cd4.js). This domain has a suspicious algorithmically-generated name characteristic of malvertising and malware distribution networks. The script is loaded with no integrity check (no SRI hash) and can execute arbitrary code, redirect users, or harvest data. (location: page.html:49)

medium

hidden content

A hidden 1x1 pixel iframe is injected into the document body via an inline Cloudflare challenge script. While partially attributable to Cloudflare bot detection, the pattern (absolute-positioned, 0 visibility, 1px dimensions) is also a known technique for hidden content injection and tracking. The iframe dynamically creates and appends scripts to itself. (location: page.html:220)

medium

social engineering

The Apps category prominently lists cracked and pre-activated software torrents (CorelDRAW 2026 Crack, IDM Crack Lifetime, Topaz Photo Pro Pre-Activated, Folder Colorizer Crack, TreeSize Professional Fix Crack). These entice users to download files that commonly bundle malware, ransomware, or credential-stealing payloads under the guise of free software. (location: page.html:4527-4898)

low

hidden content

A Tor/onion address is published in a meta http-equiv='onion-location' header, routing users to a .onion mirror (therarbgscpvql6p2e3upz7xyqb4ornupyznim5rlriycjfvcwnz7ayd.onion). While not inherently malicious, this facilitates anonymous access and is used to evade legal oversight and network-level content filtering. (location: page.html:36)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/therarbg.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is therarbg.com safe for AI agents to use?

therarbg.com currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.