context safety score
A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
cloaking
Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent
cloaking
Page loads content in transparent or zero-size iframe overlay
js obfuscation
JavaScript uses Function constructor for runtime code generation
malicious redirect
Two scripts load external JavaScript from suspicious third-party domains 'g10498469755.co' and 'g9904216750.co' — both using obfuscated variable names and numeric subdomain-style domains. The first script also sets 'body{opacity:0.0 !important}' to hide page content before the redirect fires, a classic cloaking technique. These domains are not known legitimate geo-redirect services and the pattern matches malicious redirect infrastructure. (location: page.html lines 1086-1103 (Geo Redirect scripts))
hidden content
The geo-redirect script at line 1087 injects a style tag that sets 'body{opacity:0.0 !important}' to make the entire page invisible before a remote script from 'g10498469755.co' loads and potentially executes. This opacity-zeroing technique is used to hide page content from users and security scanners while malicious activity occurs. (location: page.html line 1087 (georedirect style injection))
prompt injection
The page contains inline JavaScript comment annotations like '✅ Early consent check', '✅ Consent logic', '✅ UTM Extraction', '✅ Geo Redirect', '✅ LinkedIn Insight Tag', '✅ Google Site Verification', '✅ Contact Sales redirect', '✅ Clay Code for website' — these checkmark-prefixed labels in HTML comments mimic a structured instruction set that could be interpreted by AI agents crawling or summarizing this page as authoritative operational directives, a pattern consistent with prompt injection targeting LLM-based web agents. (location: page.html lines 940, 949, 1045, 1084, 1105, 1042, 1132, 4477)
obfuscated code
The geo-redirect scripts use obfuscated IIFE patterns with single-character parameter names (g,e,o,t,a,r,ge,tl,y,s and g,e,o,t,a,r,ge,tl,y) and dynamically inject script tags loading from numeric-domain URLs ('g10498469755.co' and 'g9904216750.co'). This obfuscation pattern is characteristic of malicious third-party script injection designed to evade static analysis. (location: page.html lines 1086-1103)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/wire.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
wire.com currently scores 40/100 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.