Is unu.im safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
47/100

context safety score

A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
50
behavior
100
content
37
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

social engineering

UNU is a micro-task exchange (crowd-marketing platform) that pays users to post fake comments, reviews, forum posts, buy social media followers/likes/reposts, and manipulate ratings across VK, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Odnoklassniki. The platform explicitly advertises coordinated inauthentic behavior as a paid service, enabling astroturfing and artificial social proof at scale. (location: page.html:53-243, page-text.txt:16-205)

medium

hidden content

Yandex Metrika tracking pixel is positioned off-screen using 'position:absolute; left:-9999px;' to silently track users without visible indication. This is a classic hidden tracker pattern used to collect behavioral data covertly. (location: page.html:385)

medium

obfuscated code

A JavaScript block contains unresolved PHP template variables ('".$site_url."/include/ajax_nomodal.php' and '$loggedin_id') embedded as literal strings in the rendered HTML. This indicates server-side template code was leaked into the client-side output without being evaluated, which may expose backend implementation details or could be an injection artifact. (location: page.html:354)

medium

social engineering

The platform explicitly markets itself as a source of fake social proof — 'only real people, every one verified' — while simultaneously selling followers, likes, comments, and reviews. This framing is designed to deceive both platform buyers and the end-users who encounter the manufactured engagement on third-party sites. (location: page.html:124-127)

low

hidden content

Several navigation links are commented out in the HTML (dashboard link, VK and Twitter social links, app install promotion) suggesting deliberately suppressed or conditionally hidden UI elements. While individually minor, this pattern combined with the leaked PHP variables suggests the page may serve different content to different audiences. (location: page.html:268,289-291)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/unu.im

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is unu.im safe for AI agents to use?

unu.im currently scores 47/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.