context safety score
A score of 44/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain xoki81qhmq.com uses a randomly generated, meaningless alphanumeric string as its name — a strong indicator of a throwaway/disposable domain commonly used in phishing infrastructure. No legitimate brand or service uses such a domain pattern. (location: metadata.json: domain)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for https://xoki81qhmq.com. The site is being served over HTTPS but the TLS handshake failed and the certificate is invalid, which is consistent with a misconfigured or deceptive redirect endpoint, a domain parked for catching traffic, or an active phishing/malware delivery site that has not yet fully stood up its infrastructure. (location: metadata.json: tls)
hidden content
The page.html, page-text.txt, and page-hidden.txt files are all empty despite the site being reachable enough to trigger a scan. This may indicate cloaking behavior — serving blank or different content to scanners/crawlers while delivering malicious payloads to targeted human visitors or specific user-agents. (location: page.html, page-text.txt, page-hidden.txt)
social engineering
The combination of a 163-day-old domain with WHOIS privacy not redacted, unknown hosting reputation, and a randomly structured domain name with empty page content is consistent with a domain held in reserve for a social engineering campaign that has not yet been fully activated, or one that selectively serves content based on visitor fingerprinting. (location: metadata.json: whois, hosting)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/xoki81qhmq.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
xoki81qhmq.com currently scores 44/100 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.