Is tx88.top safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

brand impersonation

The page is served from tx88.top but the JSON-LD structured data and internal config reference a different canonical domain (tx88.mobi) and the brand config exposes yet another domain (tx88.fun) as the live domain. The site operates under at least three domains (tx88.top, tx88.mobi, tx88.fun) with shared branding assets hosted on v2.flashcore.net, a pattern consistent with a multi-domain gambling/phishing network that cycles domains to evade blocklists. (location: page.html line 54 (JSON-LD @id and url fields referencing tx88.mobi); page-text.txt line 1 (brand config domain: tx88.fun))

high

social engineering

The site presents itself as a legitimate online casino (TX88) targeting Vietnamese users with gambling services (sports betting, lottery, card games indicated by jackpot/game identifiers in state data). Unlicensed offshore gambling platforms routinely harvest financial credentials and payment data under the guise of entertainment. (location: page.html line 13 (loader text 'CHƠI LÀ THẮNG' — 'Play to Win'); page.html line 8 (CSS vars referencing VIP badges, bank invoice slips, QR payment flows); page-text.txt line 1 (game provider identifiers: rik_vgmn, b52_vgcg, etc.))

high

credential harvesting

The application exposes an HMAC_SECRET_KEY config key (currently empty string but present in production config), payment/banking UI components (bank invoice slip, QR payment, crypto address fields), and a quick_register flag set to true — indicating a registration and financial transaction flow designed to collect user credentials and payment information. (location: page.html line 56 (window.__NUXT__.config: HMAC_SECRET_KEY, ENABLE_AUTO_SCAN_CARD, quick_register); page.html line 8 (CSS: --text-bank-invoice-slip-code, --text-qr, --text-crypto-address))

medium

hidden content

A CSS class '.seo-hidden' is defined with height:0, width:0, overflow:hidden, position:absolute, z-index:-1 — a known technique for hiding content from users while keeping it visible to crawlers or injecting invisible text/links. The class name confirms intentional use for SEO manipulation or hidden content injection. (location: page.html line 20 (.seo-hidden[data-v-c2097f66] style block))

medium

malicious redirect

The page is geo-blocking access (HTTP 403, status 'Server Error') based on IP geolocation while serving a restricted-access page. The infrastructure detects US IPs and restricts them, strongly suggesting the site serves different content to different regions — a cloaking technique used to show legitimate content to scanners/regulators while showing gambling or phishing content to target regions. (location: page-text.txt line 1 (statusCode:403, incomingCountryCode:US); page.html line 55 (restricted-background.webp, 'Access Restricted' message))

medium

brand impersonation

The JSON-LD schema declares the entity type as 'Casino' with empty required fields (name, legalName, description, email, streetAddress) — a pattern used to generate search engine presence for a gambling brand while concealing the operator's identity, and to impersonate legitimacy through structured data markup. (location: page.html line 54 (application/ld+json block with empty name, legalName, email, address fields))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/tx88.top

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is tx88.top safe for AI agents to use?

tx88.top 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.

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.