Is zegostudio.com safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
42/100

context safety score

A score of 42/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
100
behavior
70
content
10
graph
30

6 threat patterns detected

medium

encoded payload

suspicious base64-like blobs detected in page content

high

js obfuscation

JavaScript contains heavy hex-escape encoding typical of obfuscation

high

hidden content

The page contains a large inline JavaScript block appended after the closing </html> tag that uses hex-encoded strings (\x5B, \x3A, etc.) to log extensive server-side diagnostic data to the browser console. This data includes full $SERVER array contents exposing internal IP addresses (45.76.187.164), server software version (nginx/1.14.1), document root paths (/var/www/html/ZegoSite), remote addresses, Cloudflare headers, and the visiting agent's user-agent string (brin-agent/1.0). This information is hidden from normal page rendering but visible to any script or tool that reads the raw HTML. (location: page.html lines 435-499, after closing </html> tag)

high

obfuscated code

Extensive use of hex escape sequences (\x5B, \x3A, \x20, \x27, etc.) to encode all string content within the console.log diagnostic block. The obfuscation encodes SQL queries, file paths, server variables, and application internals, making the content non-obvious during casual HTML inspection while fully revealing sensitive backend details to automated parsers and developer tools. (location: page.html lines 442-499 (post-</html> script block))

medium

hidden content

The diagnostic script block exposes full internal server file paths including the web root (/var/www/html/ZegoSite), CraftCMS framework structure (/craft/app/etc/web/WebApp.php, /craft/app/bootstrap.php, etc.), compiled template cache paths, and database schema details (table names: cms_info, cms_plugins, cms_elements, cms_content, cms_fields, cms_sections, cms_locales, cms_templatecaches). This constitutes significant server-side information disclosure embedded in the public HTML response. (location: page.html lines 451-499, console.log SERVER Info and Logs groups)

medium

hidden content

An HTML comment on line 150 contains a commented-out img tag referencing an older image asset path (trangchu_1_200908_124856.png), suggesting prior content that was hidden rather than removed. While low-risk in isolation, commented-out code can expose historical file structure or content intended to be suppressed. (location: page.html line 150)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/zegostudio.com

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

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

Is zegostudio.com safe for AI agents to use?

zegostudio.com currently scores 42/100 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.