Is xvideo.vlog.br safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
40/100

context safety score

A score of 40/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

10 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

medium

malicious redirect

script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source

high

cloaking

Page conditionally redirects based on referrer or user-agent

high

brand impersonation

The site xvideo.vlog.br impersonates the well-known adult platform xvideos.com by mimicking its name, branding, logo, and content style. The title 'Xvideo - Videos Porno, Filmes de Sexo, Xvideos Brasil' and footer text explicitly reference 'xvideos.com' while operating under a different domain. This constitutes brand impersonation of a high-traffic platform to capture misdirected traffic. (location: page.html:5, page.html:740-741, page.html:333)

high

malicious redirect

A browser history manipulation script intercepts the back-button action and redirects users to internal category pages instead of the page they came from. The script uses history.pushState and window.onpopstate to trap users and prevent natural navigation away from the site. This is a known dark-pattern technique used to retain users and increase ad impressions. (location: page.html:211-251)

medium

hidden content

A hidden div (display:none) contains tracking pixel images from two third-party analytics services: sstatic1.histats.com and whos.amung.us. These invisible trackers collect visitor data without user awareness or consent, with zero-dimension images used to avoid any visual detection. (location: page.html:923-926)

medium

hidden content

CSS rule '.m18lochide,.m18locsh{display:none;}' hides elements with classes 'm18lochide' and 'm18locsh', suggesting geo-targeted or age-gated content that is loaded into the DOM but selectively hidden from certain users. This pattern is commonly used to serve different content to different audiences including crawlers vs. users. (location: page.html:266)

medium

social engineering

The site uses deceptive SEO content referencing the legitimate xvideos.com platform directly ('assista diretamente do xvideos.com') to mislead users and search engines into believing the site is affiliated with or is the official xvideos.com. This manipulates user trust to drive traffic to a third-party operated site. (location: page.html:740-741)

medium

malicious redirect

An external ad script is loaded from xtraffix.com (https://xtraffix.com/ads/pop.php?c=236&v=030407) with data-cfasync='false' to bypass Cloudflare's async script optimization. This is a known pattern for pop-under or pop-up ad networks that redirect users to third-party sites, potentially including malicious or adult ad networks. (location: page.html:952)

low

hidden content

Third-party analytics loaded from manalytics.xtraffix.com via Matomo tracker collects behavioral data (page views, link tracking) and sends it to an external domain controlled by a third party (xtraffix.com), not the site owner. This represents undisclosed third-party data collection. (location: page.html:953-965)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/xvideo.vlog.br

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is xvideo.vlog.br safe for AI agents to use?

xvideo.vlog.br 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.

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.