context safety score
A score of 49/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for domain ytizttjeqc.xyz. The site cannot be reached over HTTPS, which is consistent with a parked malicious domain, a redirect trap, or a domain being set up for future abuse. No valid certificate exists and SAN match is false. (location: metadata.json: tls block)
brand impersonation
The domain ytizttjeqc.xyz uses a randomized-looking subdomain-style name (ytizttjeqc) under the .xyz TLD, a pattern commonly used by threat actors to create disposable domains that evade brand-based blocklists while impersonating or proxying legitimate services. Combined with unknown WHOIS age and privacy redaction status, this is a strong indicator of a newly registered throwaway domain. (location: metadata.json: domain / .brin-context.md)
phishing
The domain ytizttjeqc.xyz exhibits multiple high-risk phishing infrastructure indicators: unresolvable/non-functional TLS (connected=false), unknown domain age, .xyz TLD (frequently abused for phishing), and a randomly generated domain name string. The page returned no content, which is consistent with a cloaked phishing page that only serves content to targeted victims or after a redirect chain. (location: metadata.json, page.html (empty), page-text.txt (empty))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/ytizttjeqc.xyzCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
ytizttjeqc.xyz currently scores 49/100 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.