context safety score
A score of 48/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) for voidboost.cc. The site cannot be reached securely, which is consistent with a deceptive or malicious domain that may redirect users through insecure channels or serve content only under specific conditions to evade scanning. (location: metadata.json: tls object)
social engineering
The domain name 'voidboost.cc' uses the pattern of gaming/service booster sites (common lure for credential harvesting targeting gamers), combined with a .cc TLD frequently associated with low-accountability registrations. The site returned no content during scanning, suggesting it may serve content conditionally (e.g., only to browser-based human visitors) to evade automated analysis. (location: metadata.json: domain, url)
hidden content
The page returned completely empty HTML, page text, and hidden content files despite being a registered domain with an accessible URL. This blank/evasive response to automated scanning is a known technique used by phishing and malware sites to avoid detection while serving malicious content to real users via JavaScript rendering or user-agent filtering. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/voidboost.ccCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
voidboost.cc currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.