context safety score
A score of 23/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
domain spoof risk
domain has spoofing indicators (punycode/confusable/highly synthetic naming)
encoded payload
suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content
phishing
1 deceptive links where visible host does not match destination host
malicious redirect
The scanned URL is xn--2-nyf3aak0c.com (Punycode for a Thai adult domain) but all canonical links, resource URLs, og:url, and internal navigation point to xn--3-nyf3aak0c.com — a different domain. The page served on domain '2' silently presents content belonging to domain '3', indicating a redirect/domain-swap that could be used to launder traffic or evade blocklists. (location: page.html:3,10,16 — canonical href, link preload, og:url all reference xn--3-nyf3aak0c.com while metadata.json domain is xn--2-nyf3aak0c.com)
malicious redirect
Ad banner link uses the URL shortener/redirect service ibit.ly (href=https://ibit.ly/sexy365bet) with rel=nofollow sponsored external noopener noreferrer, obscuring the true destination. Short-link redirectors on adult/gambling sites are commonly used to route users to phishing pages, malware download sites, or to bypass URL reputation filters. (location: page.html:597 — <a href=https://ibit.ly/sexy365bet>)
social engineering
Online gambling site ads (sexy365bet, macau432.com/register) are embedded directly in an adult content page targeting Thai users. Juxtaposing explicit content with casino registration links is a well-known social engineering pattern designed to exploit impaired judgment and drive impulsive gambling sign-ups, particularly targeting vulnerable users. (location: page.html:597-601 — dac-grid banner section with sexy365bet and MACAU432 ads)
hidden content
Inline CSS fragment is leaked into the visible text layer (page-text.txt line 54) — the raw CSS rule for .dac-section--banner appears in the extracted text content, suggesting the CSS is injected in a manner that bypasses normal style rendering. While this may be a WordPress rendering artifact, it can also be an indicator of content injection or poorly sandboxed ad code. (location: page-text.txt:54-59 — CSS rules appear inline within visible text extraction)
hidden content
All thumbnail images are initially rendered as inline SVG placeholders (data:image/svg+xml blank boxes) with actual image URLs deferred to data-src attributes via lazy-loading. This technique hides the real image content from scanners and crawlers that do not execute JavaScript, potentially concealing the true nature of imagery served to end users. (location: page.html:612-613, 738 — src set to blank SVG, real URL in data-src)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/xn--2-nyf3aak0c.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
xn--2-nyf3aak0c.com currently scores 23/100 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.