context safety score
A score of 41/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
malicious redirect
Multiple banner ads redirect users to external gambling/betting sites (btp-02.com, lula.ws, zxx.bet, onetop.ws, qb-78.com, ld-01.com, tting.site) with affiliate agent codes embedded in URLs (e.g., agentCode=1111, agentCode=2580, agentCode=2222), indicating a traffic monetization and redirect scheme targeting users of what appears to be a Korean webtoon/content site. (location: page.html lines 565-585, within .top-banner section)
malicious redirect
A modal popup (hidden div #pop-content with display:none) auto-opens on page load unless a cookie is set, promoting a gambling site (onetop.ws/Main?agentCode=2222) and directing users to an external domain via a prominent red call-to-action button labeled as a site migration link. The popup is hidden from normal DOM view and injected via JavaScript. (location: page.html lines 705-732, #pop-content div)
hidden content
The modal popup container div#pop-content is styled with display:none and its contents are injected into a modal overlay via JavaScript on page load. This hides the gambling advertisement and redirect from static crawlers and content scanners while still presenting it to users at runtime. (location: page.html line 705, div#pop-content style='display:none')
social engineering
The auto-opening popup uses social engineering tactics to drive users to an external gambling site: it presents itself as an official site address notification, claims the displayed address is 'real-time official address', and uses a prominent red button to push users to navigate away. The messaging mimics a legitimate site migration/update notice to manipulate user trust. (location: page.html lines 708-729, #pop-content modal content)
credential harvesting
The page includes a login form (id=login_id, id=login_pw) and a registration form (id=memreg_id, id=memreg_pw, id=memreg_pw_check) that collect username and password credentials. The login form action is '#' and there is no visible HTTPS form submission target shown in the HTML, raising concerns about where credentials are sent. The site uses EUC-KR encoding and serves a Korean-language audience, operating under an opaque domain (wfwf447.com). (location: page.html lines 210-242, .login_box and .signup_box divs)
malicious redirect
External images for navigation menu icons are loaded from a third-party domain (ionppn1.net) that also hosts all banner advertisement images. This CDN-like domain is not affiliated with the site and could be used to track users, serve different content, or be swapped to deliver malicious payloads without changing the site's own HTML. (location: page.html lines 552-554, 565-585; img src attributes pointing to ionppn1.net)
social engineering
The Twitter icon in the header and footer links to 'nicelink22.com' rather than twitter.com, deceptively using the Twitter/X brand icon (fa-twitter) to redirect users to an unrelated third-party site. This misrepresents the destination of a social media link to exploit user trust in the Twitter brand. (location: page.html lines 129, 197, 610; anchor href='https://nicelink22.com' with fa-twitter icon)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/wfwf447.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
wfwf447.com currently scores 41/100 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.