context safety score
A score of 38/100 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
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
malicious redirect
External JavaScript loaded from 'reservedghettocrimpycrimpy.com' — a randomly-named, non-reputable domain hosting an obfuscated JS file (87a87e0a95ebe3ea29b7978c7a63f354.js). This pattern is consistent with malvertising/drive-by redirect payloads injected into pages. (location: page.html:310)
malicious redirect
External JavaScript loaded from 'puppyderisiverear.com' — another randomly-named, non-reputable domain hosting an obfuscated JS file (c39abf89e8dc6ec84caab5c4f2fb17dd.js). Both this and the prior domain follow the same hash-filename pattern typical of malvertising redirect chains. (location: page.html:1238)
obfuscated code
Two third-party scripts are loaded from domains with nonsensical, randomly-generated names ('reservedghettocrimpycrimpy.com' and 'puppyderisiverear.com') with MD5-hash filenames. This is a known obfuscation/evasion pattern used to host malicious payloads that are difficult to blocklist by filename or domain reputation alone. (location: page.html:310, page.html:1238)
malicious redirect
Script loaded from 'syndication.realsrv.com/splash.php' with zone ID parameter. 'realsrv.com' is associated with the ExoClick ad network but its splash.php endpoint has been observed delivering forced redirects and pop-under ads, which can chain to phishing or scam pages. (location: page.html:1241)
credential harvesting
Login form posts credentials (username + password) via HTTP POST to '/login'. The login modal collects plaintext password input. While TLS is present at the transport layer, the form itself has no CSRF token visible and the login endpoint is a relative path with no additional protections observable in the HTML. (location: page.html:93-114)
social engineering
The site presents a 'Member Login' and 'Sign Up' flow on an adult content platform that aggregates user-generated content including voyeuristic/non-consensual material (tags include '盗撮' meaning 'voyeur/hidden camera'). Users may be socially engineered into registering accounts to access content that could expose them to further manipulation or credential reuse attacks. (location: page.html:90-117)
hidden content
Multiple HTML comment blocks labeled '<!-- junkCode -->' appear throughout the page (lines 325-327, 711-714, 774, 1155, 1165). While some wrap legitimate ad code, this labeling pattern can be used to camouflage injected content or obfuscate the purpose of embedded scripts from automated scanners. (location: page.html:325, 711, 774, 1155, 1165)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/tokyomotion.netCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
tokyomotion.net currently scores 38/100 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.