context safety score
A score of 48/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
brand impersonation
Domain 'yahooapis.jp' closely mimics Yahoo's legitimate API infrastructure domain 'yahooapis.com', substituting the TLD with '.jp' to impersonate a Yahoo-affiliated service. This pattern is commonly used to deceive users, developers, or AI agents into trusting the domain as an official Yahoo endpoint. (location: domain: yahooapis.jp)
phishing
The domain impersonates a well-known brand (Yahoo APIs) with a failed TLS connection and no valid certificate, serving empty page content. This infrastructure profile is consistent with a dormant or staged phishing domain awaiting payload deployment or used for targeted campaigns. (location: domain: yahooapis.jp, TLS: connected=false, cert_valid=false)
malicious redirect
The site returns empty page content despite the domain being active. This is consistent with a redirect-only or cloaked infrastructure that serves different content to targeted visitors (e.g., bots, specific geolocations, or referred traffic) while appearing empty to scanners. (location: page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
credential harvesting
A domain impersonating Yahoo APIs with invalid TLS and no visible content may be used as a backend endpoint for credential harvesting, where stolen credentials are silently posted to this domain from malicious forms hosted elsewhere. (location: domain: yahooapis.jp, metadata.json: tls.cert_valid=false, tls.san_match=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/yahooapis.jpCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
yahooapis.jp currently scores 48/100 with a suspicious verdict and medium 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.