Is vizortube.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
32/100

context safety score

A score of 32/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
60
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

11 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation

high

brand impersonation

vizortube.com mimics YouTube's core design, layout, and UX patterns (video grid, channel avatars, view counts, upload timestamps, navigation bar) while serving YouTube thumbnail images directly from i.ytimg.com and channel avatars from yt3.ggpht.com — effectively impersonating YouTube to create a deceptive familiar interface on a 277-day-old unestablished domain. (location: page.html: entire page structure, video-grid, video-card components (lines 758–1380))

high

social engineering

The site promotes a 'watch videos and earn XP/virtual Coins' reward scheme designed to incentivize repeated engagement and account creation. The referral modal auto-displays on page load (500ms delay) pushing users to sign up via a referral link, a classic pyramid-style user acquisition manipulation tactic on a recently registered domain. (location: page.html lines 1854–1877 (openReferralModal auto-trigger); meta description and OG tags lines 6–14)

high

credential harvesting

The search form submits to https://vizortube.com/login and the onsubmit handler forces a redirect to /login regardless of search input — any search action funnels the user directly into a login/credential capture flow. The 'Sign In' button links to /code (an atypical path suggesting invite/referral code gating). Combined with 'Sign in with Google without entering password' messaging in the browser modal, the site is engineered to harvest Google OAuth credentials. (location: page.html lines 612–617 (search form action and onsubmit), line 620–624 (Sign In button href=/code), lines 1510–1511 (browserModal Google sign-in prompt))

high

phishing

The domain vizortube.com (277 days old) presents as a legitimate YouTube-like video platform using real YouTube content metadata and thumbnails to establish trust, then redirects all interaction vectors (search, sign-in, video clicks leading to /video/* pages requiring login) toward credential collection. The 'Open in Browser' modal explicitly instructs users on how to bypass in-app browser security protections to enable Google OAuth sign-in, a known phishing technique used to steal Google account tokens. (location: page.html lines 1501–1541 (browserModal), lines 1543–1568 (isInAppBrowser script), search form and sign-in button)

medium

social engineering

The isInAppBrowser() function detects users arriving via Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, Twitter, TikTok, LinkedIn, and musical_ly in-app browsers, then displays a modal coaching them to open the page in a full browser. This targets social media referral traffic specifically to circumvent in-app browser security sandboxing — a technique used to enable full OAuth token interception that would otherwise be blocked. (location: page.html lines 1543–1568 (isInAppBrowser detection and browserModal trigger logic))

medium

hidden content

The page-text.txt file contains raw CSS blocks rendered as visible text (lines 61–153, 544–624), indicating CSS is being injected into the DOM in a manner that causes text extraction tools to capture style rules as page content. This may indicate style blocks placed in unexpected locations to confuse automated scanners or content parsers. (location: page-text.txt lines 61–153 and 544–624 (CSS visible as text content))

medium

social engineering

Two separate Facebook Pixel IDs (2515399955479616 and 1708910427155784) are initialized simultaneously on the landing page, enabling cross-account behavioral tracking and retargeting of visitors. Running dual pixels is unusual for a legitimate site and suggests coordinated ad-network-level user profiling across multiple Facebook Business accounts for subsequent targeted phishing or scam ad campaigns. (location: page.html lines 580–598 (Meta Pixel Code with dual fbq init calls))

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/vizortube.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is vizortube.com safe for AI agents to use?

vizortube.com currently scores 32/100 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.