Is ufw-firewall.xyz 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
60
behavior
80
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

malicious redirect

The page contains only a JavaScript window.onload redirect to '/lander' with no visible content. This is a classic cloaking/redirect pattern used to serve different content to bots vs. real users, or to funnel visitors to a phishing/malicious landing page. (location: page.html:1 — <script>window.onload=function(){window.location.href="/lander"}</script>)

high

hidden content

The entire page body is empty — page-text.txt contains no visible text. All functional content is hidden behind a JavaScript redirect, making the true payload invisible to scanners that do not execute JS or follow the redirect. (location: page.html:1 / page-text.txt (empty))

high

brand impersonation

The domain 'ufw-firewall.xyz' impersonates UFW (Uncomplicated Firewall), a well-known Linux security tool. Use of a .xyz TLD with a security-tool brand name is a common tactic to lure system administrators or IT professionals into trusting the site, potentially to harvest credentials or distribute malware. (location: metadata.json — domain: ufw-firewall.xyz)

medium

social engineering

The domain name combines 'ufw' (a trusted Linux firewall utility) with 'firewall' to project an authoritative, security-related identity. This is designed to build false trust with technically sophisticated users (sysadmins, DevOps), increasing the likelihood they will interact with or download content from the site. (location: metadata.json — domain: ufw-firewall.xyz)

high

phishing

Combination of brand-impersonating domain (ufw-firewall.xyz), a .xyz TLD, null WHOIS domain age, redacted registrar info, and a full-page JS redirect to '/lander' with no visible content are consistent with a phishing site infrastructure. The site is designed to appear legitimate while funneling targets to a credential-harvesting or malware delivery page. (location: metadata.json + page.html)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ufw-firewall.xyz

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is ufw-firewall.xyz safe for AI agents to use?

ufw-firewall.xyz 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.