context safety score
A score of 46/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
malicious redirect
script/meta redirect patterns detected in page source
malicious redirect
The root page contains only a JavaScript redirect via window.location.href that immediately sends visitors to '/lander' with no visible content. This pattern is commonly used to redirect users to phishing or malware landing pages while evading automated scanners that don't execute JavaScript. (location: page.html:1 — window.onload redirect to /lander)
hidden content
The page renders no visible text content whatsoever (page-text.txt is empty), yet contains executable JavaScript. All meaningful content is hidden from static analysis and only revealed after JavaScript execution, a common evasion technique. (location: page.html:1 — empty body with JS-only content)
social engineering
The domain 'zer0day.to' uses leet-speak substitution ('0' for 'o') to evoke 'zero-day' exploit culture, likely to attract security researchers or technically sophisticated users. This is a social engineering lure targeting a specific demographic. (location: metadata.json — domain: zer0day.to)
phishing
Combination of WHOIS privacy unknown/redacted, null domain age, a .to TLD (Tonga ccTLD frequently abused for anonymity), and an immediately redirecting page with no visible content are collectively consistent with a phishing infrastructure setup. (location: metadata.json — whois.domain_age_days: null, domain: zer0day.to)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/zer0day.toCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
zer0day.to currently scores 46/100 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.