context safety score
A score of 40/100 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 at toogoodtogo.com renders a 'Vercel Security Checkpoint' page, impersonating Vercel's bot protection UI. toogoodtogo.com has no known affiliation with Vercel. Serving a fake Vercel checkpoint page on a non-Vercel-owned domain is a classic brand impersonation tactic used to deceive users and automated agents into trusting the page as a legitimate infrastructure gate. (location: page.html <title>Vercel Security Checkpoint</title> and footer text)
obfuscated code
The page contains heavily obfuscated JavaScript using string-array rotation, numeric index obfuscation (e.g. parseInt(c(167))/1+parseInt(c(171))/2...), and shuffled lookup arrays. This pattern is characteristic of tools like javascript-obfuscator and is used to hide the true intent of the script — commonly seen in credential harvesting, fingerprinting, or redirect chains — from static analysis tools and security scanners. (location: page.html <script type="module"> block, lines 2)
social engineering
The page presents a fake 'browser verification' spinner with the message 'We're verifying your browser', a common social engineering technique used to stall users while obfuscated scripts execute in the background (fingerprinting, token theft, or redirect preparation). The noscript fallback instructs users to 'Enable JavaScript to continue', pressuring execution of the hidden script payload. (location: page.html #header-text and #header-noscript-text elements)
malicious redirect
The obfuscated JavaScript dynamically manipulates DOM elements (via string-concatenated getElementById, style, and removal calls) and is structured to execute conditional logic after a simulated 'verification' delay. This pattern is strongly associated with client-side redirect chains where the user is forwarded to a malicious destination only after the script completes its checks, making the redirect invisible to static crawlers. (location: page.html <script type="module"> — functions b(), T(), P() and the obfuscated self-invoking function)
hidden content
The #root container is initially set to display:none in CSS, and the #fix-container div is explicitly set to style='display: none;'. Content is revealed dynamically by the obfuscated script. This means the true page content and any injected elements are hidden from static analysis and non-JS crawlers, a technique used to conceal malicious payloads from automated scanners. (location: page.html CSS rule '#root{display:none}' and <div id='fix-container' style='display: none;'>)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/toogoodtogo.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
toogoodtogo.com currently scores 40/100 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.