context safety score
A score of 40/100 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 xrplunch.com is only 42 days old and combines 'XRP' (a well-known cryptocurrency brand) with 'lunch', a pattern common in crypto phishing sites designed to lure users with giveaway or airdrop themes. The very short domain age is a strong phishing indicator. (location: metadata.json: domain_age_days=42, domain=xrplunch.com)
brand impersonation
The domain xrplunch.com incorporates 'XRP', the ticker symbol for Ripple's cryptocurrency. This is a common brand impersonation technique used to deceive XRP/Ripple users into believing the site is affiliated with the official Ripple or XRP ecosystem. (location: metadata.json: domain=xrplunch.com)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed entirely (connected=false, cert_valid=false, san_match=false) on a site that appears to target crypto users. Sites with broken or absent TLS may be serving content via HTTP to facilitate interception, redirect chains, or credential theft without transport security. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false, tls.san_match=false)
credential harvesting
Combination of a brand-impersonating crypto domain (xrplunch.com), very young age (42 days), unknown hosting reputation, and failed TLS is consistent with a credential harvesting setup targeting XRP wallet holders or exchange users. (location: metadata.json: hosting.reputation=Unknown, tls.connected=false, domain_age_days=42)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/xrplunch.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
xrplunch.com currently scores 40/100 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.