context safety score
A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
The domain 'usvisascheduling.com' impersonates official U.S. government visa scheduling services (e.g., ustraveldocs.com or ais.usvisa-info.com). The name closely mimics legitimate government-adjacent visa scheduling portals to deceive users seeking official visa appointment services. (location: domain: usvisascheduling.com)
brand impersonation
The domain name 'usvisascheduling.com' mimics the branding and naming conventions of official U.S. government or authorized visa scheduling platforms, likely to deceive users into believing they are interacting with an official or authorized service. (location: domain: usvisascheduling.com)
social engineering
A site purporting to offer U.S. visa scheduling services would attract users in high-stress, high-stakes immigration situations, making them highly susceptible to social engineering tactics such as fake urgency, fraudulent fees, or data collection under false pretenses. (location: domain: usvisascheduling.com)
credential harvesting
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false), meaning the site either does not serve HTTPS properly or the page could not be fetched securely. A visa scheduling site that collects personal/passport/login data over an insecure or non-functional TLS connection poses a significant credential and PII harvesting risk. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/usvisascheduling.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
usvisascheduling.com currently scores 42/100 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.