Is videly.co safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
35/100

context safety score

A score of 35/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
60
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

brand impersonation

The domain videly.co impersonates videy.co (a legitimate video hosting service). The page title is 'videyle.co' and video content is served from cdn.videy.co, creating deliberate brand confusion to lure users expecting the legitimate videy.co platform. (location: page.html:<title> tag (line 6), video src (line 173))

critical

malicious redirect

Aggressive forced popup/redirect ad network using fmt69.com triggered at multiple points: on poster click, at 2 seconds of video playback, at 10 seconds, and at 20 seconds of watch time. The pop() function forces navigation via location.href if window.open is blocked, making redirects inescapable. Four distinct fmt69.com ad URLs are used: /4/9944102, /4/9856259, /4/10022947. (location: page.html:lines 179-236)

high

malicious redirect

Path-suffix-based conditional redirect: URL paths ending in '2' redirect to fmt69.com/4/9856259, paths ending in '3' redirect to fmt69.com/4/10022947, and paths ending in 'l' redirect to mo.gatsbykynurin.com/i7II7iFGqtV0Ou/136958. The gatsbykynurin.com domain is a known malvertising/traffic distribution system (TDS) endpoint used for targeted malicious payload delivery. (location: page.html:lines 11-23)

high

social engineering

Floating Telegram button linking to t.me/+tpP-CAXtgqdmYzRl (an invite link to a private Telegram group) is prominently displayed. Combined with adult/clickbait poster imagery (630 rotating poster images) and a fake video player UI, this is a social engineering lure to funnel users into an unmonitored Telegram channel, commonly used for scams, malware distribution, or further phishing. (location: page.html:lines 140-144)

medium

hidden content

A hidden 1x1 pixel iframe is injected via obfuscated Cloudflare-mimicking script at the bottom of the page. The iframe is position:absolute, top:0, left:0, visibility:hidden, and injects a secondary script with a base64-encoded timestamp parameter (t='MTc3MjYxNzQxOA=='). While this resembles a Cloudflare bot challenge script, its placement inside a hidden iframe with dynamic script injection is a technique used to fingerprint users or load additional payloads invisibly. (location: page.html:line 255)

medium

hidden content

The page sets 'robots: noindex, nofollow' to prevent search engine crawling and indexing, deliberately hiding the site's malicious behavior from security scanners and search engines while remaining accessible to targeted victims via direct links. (location: page.html:line 8)

medium

obfuscated code

The Cloudflare-lookalike script at the bottom of the page uses a self-invoking IIFE that creates a hidden iframe and injects script content via innerHTML with an encoded parameter (base64 t='MTc3MjYxNzQxOA=='). This obfuscation pattern mimics legitimate CDN challenge scripts to evade detection while executing arbitrary code in an isolated iframe context. (location: page.html:line 255)

medium

social engineering

The page body is wiped (document.body.innerHTML='') when no path ID is present, rendering the page blank for direct visitors. This cloaking technique ensures the malicious video-player/ad experience only activates for users arriving via specific shared links, evading casual inspection and security analysis of the root domain. (location: page.html:lines 147-148)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/videly.co

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is videly.co safe for AI agents to use?

videly.co currently scores 35/100 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.