Is xvideos.net safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
41/100

context safety score

A score of 41/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
90
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

8 threat patterns detected

high

brand impersonation

Domain xvideos.net impersonates the well-known brand xvideos.com. The site presents itself as an official 'links' page for xvideos.com but is a separate, unaffiliated domain designed to redirect users under the guise of the legitimate brand. (location: page.html:5, metadata.json:domain)

high

malicious redirect

The meta description tag contains a redirect URL to 'https://www.xvideos005.com/' — a suspicious lookalike domain not affiliated with the official xvideos.com brand, likely used to funnel traffic to a third-party site. (location: page.html:8)

high

malicious redirect

APK download link points to 'https://1525721419.rsc.cdn77.org/android/apk/xvideos-STABLE-0.66' — a CDN-hosted numeric subdomain distributing an Android APK outside of any official app store, posing a high risk of malware delivery. (location: page.html:90)

high

malicious redirect

A second APK download link points to 'https://1525721419.rsc.cdn77.org/android/apk/xvideos-BETA-1.7' — same suspicious CDN-hosted numeric subdomain distributing an Android APK binary outside any official app store channel. (location: page.html:112)

high

brand impersonation

Link to 'https://www.xvv1deos.com' uses a homoglyph/typosquat of 'xvideos.com' (replacing 'i' with '1' and doubling 'v') presented as a legitimate bypass mirror, deceiving users into visiting a lookalike domain. (location: page.html:98-99)

medium

social engineering

The Android APK links are described as 'free and safe' and 'new app released in 2018', using trust-building language to encourage users to sideload an unverified APK from an unofficial CDN host rather than an official app store. (location: page.html:91)

medium

social engineering

The typosquat domain xvv1deos.com is framed as a helpful bypass ('if xvideos.com is blocked for you'), using access-restriction concerns to socially engineer users into visiting a lookalike phishing/malware domain. (location: page.html:99)

medium

hidden content

CSS class '.porno' sets both background-color and color to #000000 (black on black), rendering any text within it invisible to users while remaining present in the DOM — a classic hidden content technique. (location: page.html:55-59)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/xvideos.net

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is xvideos.net safe for AI agents to use?

xvideos.net currently scores 41/100 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.