context safety score
A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
brand impersonation
Domain name 'uqholdxxogin-us.godaddysites.com' and page title 'Ûphold Loℊin | Sign In' use deliberate typosquatting and Unicode homoglyph substitution (Û U+00DB for U, ℊ U+210A for g) to impersonate Uphold, a legitimate cryptocurrency wallet platform. (location: domain: uqholdxxogin-us.godaddysites.com; page title tag: 'Ûphold Loℊin | Sign In 💎')
phishing
The site is constructed as a fake Uphold login page ('Ûphold Loℊin | Sign In') hosted on a free GoDaddy site builder subdomain, designed to steal cryptocurrency account credentials from victims who believe they are accessing the legitimate Uphold platform. (location: https://uqholdxxogin-us.godaddysites.com; page title and meta author 'uqholdxxogin-us')
credential harvesting
Site presents as a login/sign-in page for the Uphold crypto platform ('Sign In') with membership/authentication infrastructure enabled (wam_site_membershipEnabled: true). Visible login form is absent from static HTML, indicating credentials are harvested via dynamically loaded client-side content to evade static analysis. (location: page.html: inline script wam_site_membershipEnabled=true; page-text.txt lines 5-8)
hidden content
Meta description content ('We are using up to date health agency guidelines... EPA-approved cleaning') is entirely unrelated to the page's actual purpose as a crypto login page. This is deliberate deceptive metadata used to mislead automated scanners, search crawlers, and AI content classifiers while the real malicious purpose (credential phishing) is concealed. (location: page.html line 1: <meta name='description'>, og:description, twitter:description)
obfuscated code
Inline script uses document.write() with hex-escaped string ('\x3Cscript') to dynamically inject a script element, a classic obfuscation technique used to evade static content security scanners and load additional payloads at runtime. (location: page.html line 222; page-text.txt line 2)
social engineering
Unicode homoglyph characters in the page title (Û and ℊ) are visually indistinguishable from ASCII equivalents in most fonts, psychologically convincing victims they are on the legitimate Uphold site. Combined with the 'Sign In 💎' framing and crypto diamond emoji, this exploits user trust in brand recognition. (location: page.html line 1: <title>Ûphold Loℊin | Sign In 💎</title>)
prompt injection
The deceptive and mismatched meta description ('health agency guidelines... EPA-approved cleaning') on a crypto login page constitutes a prompt injection attempt targeting AI agents and LLM-based content analyzers: injecting irrelevant benign-sounding text into machine-readable metadata fields to manipulate automated threat classification systems into rating the page as benign. (location: page.html lines 1-9: meta name='description', og:description, twitter:description)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/uqholdxxogin-us.godaddysites.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
uqholdxxogin-us.godaddysites.com currently scores 43/100 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.