Is yagfalabfgal.blogspot.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
43/100

context safety score

A score of 43/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
100
content
0
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation

critical

malicious redirect

JavaScript in <head> immediately redirects all visitors to an external suspicious URL at 'auc.bqv.mybluehost.me' via window.location.href assignment. The redirect is unconditional and executes before any page content renders, passing URL hash fragments (ref, date, courriel) as query parameters to the destination — a classic phishing traffic-forwarding pattern. (location: page.html:26-33, <script> block in <head>)

critical

phishing

The redirect destination 'https://auc.bqv.mybluehost.me/website_90a8ee5d/wp-content/css/12//?op=1&ref=...&date=...&courriel=...' uses a non-descriptive subdomain on a shared host, a randomized path under wp-content/css (anomalous for CSS directories), and passes 'courriel' (French for 'email') as a tracked parameter — strongly indicating a phishing landing page designed to harvest email credentials. (location: page.html:29, randURLs array value)

critical

credential harvesting

The redirect URL passes URL hash fragments including 'courriel' (email address) as a query parameter to the external destination. This pattern is used in phishing campaigns to pre-populate or track victim email addresses at the harvesting endpoint, confirming credential-harvesting intent. (location: page.html:29, query parameters: &courriel= + hash[2])

high

hidden content

The page body contains no visible content whatsoever (empty blog with 'Aucun article'). The entire functional payload is concealed inside a <script> block in the <head> that executes the redirect silently, making the malicious behavior invisible to casual inspection and bypassing content-based filters that only examine rendered text. (location: page.html:39-42, page-text.txt:1-12 (body renders empty))

medium

social engineering

The page abuses the trusted blogspot.com domain (Google-hosted, valid DV TLS cert from Google Trust Services) to lend legitimacy to the redirect chain. Victims and automated tools are more likely to trust a blogspot.com URL, masking the true malicious destination on mybluehost.me. (location: metadata.json: domain=yagfalabfgal.blogspot.com, tls.issuer=Google Trust Services)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/yagfalabfgal.blogspot.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is yagfalabfgal.blogspot.com safe for AI agents to use?

yagfalabfgal.blogspot.com currently scores 43/100 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 6, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Trust Graph

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.