context safety score
A score of 49/100 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
The domain 'wellsfargomedia.com' impersonates Wells Fargo, a major US financial institution, by appending 'media' to the brand name. This is a classic typosquatting/brand-abuse pattern used to deceive users and AI agents into trusting the domain as legitimate Wells Fargo infrastructure. (location: domain: wellsfargomedia.com)
phishing
The domain mimics Wells Fargo's brand while having TLS completely non-functional (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false). A domain impersonating a financial institution with no valid TLS is a strong phishing indicator — legitimate Wells Fargo properties would never serve over broken/absent TLS. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
Combination of Wells Fargo brand impersonation domain and failed TLS is consistent with a credential harvesting operation targeting banking customers. Users or agents directed here expecting legitimate Wells Fargo content may submit login credentials or sensitive financial data. (location: domain: wellsfargomedia.com, metadata.json tls block)
hidden content
The page rendered empty content (page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt are all blank), yet the domain is live and registered. An empty or cloaked page that serves no visible content may be selectively serving malicious payloads based on user-agent, referrer, or IP — a common cloaking technique to evade automated scanners. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty), page-hidden.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/wellsfargomedia.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
wellsfargomedia.com currently scores 49/100 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.