Is wstgbvtcvhujpr0vngwr.web.app safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

5 threat patterns detected

critical

malicious redirect

JavaScript on page load reads the URL fragment (hash) and immediately redirects to an external URL at jennybrookbluegrass.com, appending the hash value as an 'email' parameter. This is a classic open redirect / phishing relay pattern used to forward victims (with their email pre-filled) to a credential harvesting page. (location: page.html:17 — window.location.href = "https://jennybrookbluegrass.com/wp-content/upgrade/css/css/vnsva/?email=" + email)

critical

phishing

The redirect destination path (/wp-content/upgrade/css/css/vnsva/) is a well-known pattern for phishing kits hosted on compromised WordPress sites. The page acts as a phishing relay: the victim's email address is passed via URL fragment and forwarded to the phishing kit, enabling a pre-filled credential harvesting form at the destination. (location: page.html:17 — redirect target: https://jennybrookbluegrass.com/wp-content/upgrade/css/css/vnsva/)

critical

credential harvesting

The email value extracted from the URL hash is passed as a query parameter to the destination phishing page, strongly indicating a credential harvesting operation where the victim's email is pre-populated on a fake login form to increase success rate. (location: page.html:13-17 — var email = hash; ... ?email=" + email)

high

hidden content

The page body is completely empty with no visible content (page-text.txt is blank). All malicious activity is concealed within a script tag in the head, making the page invisible to casual inspection while silently redirecting victims. (location: page.html:22-24 — empty <body>; page-text.txt is blank)

high

social engineering

The site uses a legitimate-looking Firebase Hosting domain (web.app) with a valid Google-issued TLS certificate to appear trustworthy, while functioning solely as a redirect intermediary. The obfuscated subdomain (wstgbvtcvhujpr0vngwr) is typical of auto-generated phishing relay infrastructure. (location: metadata.json — domain: wstgbvtcvhujpr0vngwr.web.app, issuer: Google Trust Services)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/wstgbvtcvhujpr0vngwr.web.app

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is wstgbvtcvhujpr0vngwr.web.app safe for AI agents to use?

wstgbvtcvhujpr0vngwr.web.app currently scores 43/100 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.