context safety score
A score of 44/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain 'vitale-assufr.com' mimics 'Vitale' (Carte Vitale, the French national health insurance card) combined with 'assufr' suggesting 'assurance France' (French insurance). This combination strongly impersonates a French government health insurance or insurance service brand, likely targeting French citizens seeking health/insurance services. (location: metadata.json: domain=vitale-assufr.com)
phishing
Domain is 41 days old (very recently registered), TLS is not connected and certificate is invalid, and the domain name impersonates a French health/insurance authority. These are hallmark characteristics of a phishing site targeting French insurance or government service users. The inability to establish a valid TLS connection combined with the deceptive domain name pattern is consistent with a phishing infrastructure still being set up or selectively serving content. (location: metadata.json: domain_age_days=41, tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
social engineering
The domain construction 'vitale-assufr.com' (combining 'vitale' referencing Carte Vitale and 'assufr' abbreviating 'assurance France') is designed to create false legitimacy and trust among French-speaking users who associate these terms with official government health insurance services, constituting social engineering via domain name deception. (location: metadata.json: domain=vitale-assufr.com)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/vitale-assufr.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
vitale-assufr.com currently scores 44/100 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.