Is www.gob.mx safe?

suspiciousmedium confidence
47/100

context safety score

A score of 47/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

js obfuscation

Very long base64 or hex string assigned in JavaScript — likely encoded payload

high

hidden content

The page serves a bot challenge interstitial ("Challenge Validation") instead of the expected gob.mx government portal content. The entire visible page body is replaced by two iframes loading obfuscated paths (/buWY/pBQ5/TH/YBuE/...) with no human-readable text rendered, making page-text.txt completely empty. This conceals the true page content from automated analysis pipelines. (location: page.html: <body> — iframe#sec-text-if and iframe#sec-cpt-if)

high

obfuscated code

All resource paths (CSS, JS, iframe src attributes) use deeply nested randomised path segments (e.g., /buWY/pBQ5/TH/YBuE/Y1jg/NSXiwY/ARkMJ1wMBA/...) that are not human-readable and obscure the actual endpoints being loaded. The challenge token embedded in the 'challenge' attribute is a long base64-encoded blob containing a verify_url pointing back to the same obfuscated path structure. (location: page.html: <link href>, <script src>, iframe src and challenge attributes)

medium

prompt injection

The base64-decoded challenge token contains a 'verify_url' field (https://www.gob.mx/buWY/pBQ5/TH/YBuE/Y1jg/NSXikmOGtYai/ARkMJ1wMBA/NGxiIlcN/ZA4) embedded as a structured JSON payload inside the challenge attribute. An AI agent parsing or following iframe attributes or embedded JSON could be directed to fetch this URL, potentially triggering unintended server-side actions or feeding attacker-controlled data into the agent's context. (location: page.html: iframe#sec-cpt-if, challenge attribute (verify_url field in decoded JSON))

medium

social engineering

The page title is 'Challenge Validation' and the iframe is titled 'Challenge Content' with provider='crypto', priming a user or agent to believe a legitimate cryptographic proof-of-work challenge is required. The sessionStorage key 'data-duration' is set to 30, creating artificial urgency. This pattern is used to coerce automated agents and users into executing JavaScript or reloading, which could be leveraged to force repeated requests or exfiltrate timing data. (location: page.html: <title>, sessionStorage.setItem call, iframe provider attribute)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/www.gob.mx

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is www.gob.mx safe for AI agents to use?

www.gob.mx currently scores 47/100 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.

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 4, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

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.