Is vpas.hiraku-agentu.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
31/100

context safety score

A score of 31/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
20
behavior
100
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

tls connection failed

Could not establish TLS connection

high

phishing

Domain 'vpas.hiraku-agentu.com' is only 35 days old. Newly registered domains are a strong indicator of phishing infrastructure, as threat actors register fresh domains to evade blocklists. (location: metadata.json: whois.domain_age_days=35)

critical

phishing

TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A site that cannot establish a valid TLS session while appearing to host a service is highly suspicious and indicative of a misconfigured or hastily deployed phishing/credential-harvesting page. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false, tls.san_match=false)

medium

brand impersonation

The subdomain and domain pattern 'vpas.hiraku-agentu.com' mimics a legitimate-sounding service abbreviation ('vpas' could stand for VPN, VPA, or a vendor portal access system) combined with a fabricated brand name ('hiraku-agentu'), potentially impersonating an enterprise or AI-agent authentication portal. (location: metadata.json: domain=vpas.hiraku-agentu.com)

high

credential harvesting

Combination of a very young domain (35 days), failed TLS, unknown hosting reputation, and empty page content is consistent with a credential-harvesting lure page — either awaiting deployment or serving content conditionally (e.g., only to targeted victims or specific user-agents/IPs). (location: metadata.json, page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))

medium

prompt injection

The domain name contains 'agentu' which may be a deliberate keyword targeting AI agents or agentic pipelines. Combined with the empty page content, this may be a probe or lure designed to interact with automated crawlers or AI browsing agents rather than human users. (location: metadata.json: domain=vpas.hiraku-agentu.com)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/vpas.hiraku-agentu.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is vpas.hiraku-agentu.com safe for AI agents to use?

vpas.hiraku-agentu.com currently scores 31/100 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 6, 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.