Is tk999.org safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
36/100

context safety score

A score of 36/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
80
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

critical

brand impersonation

Site hosted on tk999.org repeatedly claims to be TK999.COM in the page title, all meta tags (og:title, og:description, twitter:title, twitter:description), and keywords. The actual domain (tk999.org) is deliberately misrepresented as the '.COM' official brand to deceive users into believing they are on the legitimate TK999.COM platform. (location: page.html <title>, meta name='title', meta property='og:title', meta property='twitter:title')

high

social engineering

The meta description fabricates a government registration number ('BD-GAME-2020-TK999') and falsely claims the site is a 'legally compliant gaming platform' in Bangladesh with 800,000+ active players and 10,000+ games. These unverifiable authority signals are used to manufacture trust and legitimacy. (location: page.html meta name='description', meta property='og:description')

high

credential harvesting

The page loads a script explicitly named 'encrypt.js' alongside a single-page app architecture where all content is rendered client-side via JavaScript. This pattern is consistent with client-side credential interception — capturing login/payment inputs and encrypting them before or instead of transmitting to a legitimate backend. (location: page.html <script src='/js/encrypt.js?v=14333'>)

high

phishing

The site operates as a lookalike/typosquat on tk999.org while impersonating tk999.com, targeting users of an online gambling/gaming platform. Meta keywords include 'TK999 official', 'TK999 real website', and 'TK999 download' in Bengali — classic phishing lures directing users away from the legitimate site to this credential-harvesting clone. (location: page.html meta name='keywords')

medium

hidden content

The page body contains only an empty <div id='app'></div> with all content rendered dynamically via JavaScript bundles (chunk-web-view, chunk-vendors, index.js). This single-page app shell hides all actual page content from static scanners and crawlers, including any malicious UI elements, redirect logic, or phishing forms. (location: page.html <body><div id='app'></div>)

medium

social engineering

Meta keywords in Bengali include 'TK999 download' and 'TK999 official app', baiting users into downloading an application from an unofficial domain. This is a common vector for distributing mobile malware disguised as a legitimate gaming app. (location: page.html meta name='keywords' content includes 'TK999 ডাউনলোড' and 'টিকে৯৯৯ অ্যাপ')

medium

obfuscated code

A script named 'aboutMerchant.js' is loaded synchronously (non-deferred) before all other scripts, suggesting it runs first to configure merchant/affiliate tracking or alter page behavior before the main app initializes. The vague naming obscures its true function, which combined with 'encrypt.js' suggests coordinated credential or payment data exfiltration infrastructure. (location: page.html <script src='/js/aboutMerchant.js?v=14333'>)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/tk999.org

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is tk999.org safe for AI agents to use?

tk999.org 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.

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.