context safety score
A score of 32/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
brand impersonation
The page at wayfarerorthodox.com renders content that fully impersonates a Google CAPTCHA/reCAPTCHA verification page. The page title is set to 'https://google.com/', it displays Google branding, Google Terms of Service links, and Google support links, while being served from an unrelated domain (wayfarerorthodox.com). (location: page.html:3, page.html:22-28)
malicious redirect
A hidden form field sets 'continue' value to 'https://google.com/' and the form action posts to 'index'. The page is designed to intercept the user's browser session under the guise of a CAPTCHA challenge and then redirect, potentially after harvesting tokens or cookies. The actual serving domain is wayfarerorthodox.com, not Google. (location: page.html:17)
phishing
The entire page is a phishing lure: a non-Google domain (wayfarerorthodox.com) serves a pixel-perfect clone of a Google CAPTCHA interstitial page, deceiving users into believing they are interacting with a legitimate Google security check. This is a classic phishing technique to harvest reCAPTCHA tokens or session data. (location: page.html:1-35)
credential harvesting
The form posts to 'index' (same domain) via POST method with a hidden 'q' parameter containing an encoded/opaque token value and a 'continue' redirect to google.com. This pattern is consistent with harvesting reCAPTCHA response tokens or session identifiers before forwarding the user to the legitimate destination. (location: page.html:7, page.html:17)
hidden content
A hidden div with id='infoDiv' is set to display:none and contains additional Google-branded explanatory text with links to google.com policies and support pages. This content is not visible to users by default and reinforces the Google impersonation narrative when revealed. (location: page.html:26-28)
prompt injection
The page body contains an onload handler that calls 'solveSimpleChallenge(0,0)' if the function exists. This is a known prompt/challenge injection technique targeting automated agents and headless browsers — instructing any AI agent or automation framework that auto-executes page scripts to silently solve and submit the CAPTCHA form without user interaction. (location: page.html:4)
social engineering
The page uses authoritative, fear-inducing language ('Our systems have detected unusual traffic', 'in violation of Terms of Service', 'malicious software') attributed to Google to psychologically pressure users into complying with the CAPTCHA submission, which sends data to the attacker-controlled domain wayfarerorthodox.com. (location: page.html:24, page-text.txt:21-24)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/wayfarerorthodox.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
wayfarerorthodox.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.
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.