context safety score
A score of 45/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
tls connection failed
Could not establish TLS connection
phishing
Domain 'zgkxchijue.xyz' uses a randomized nonsense string subdomain under the .xyz TLD, a pattern strongly associated with phishing and malicious infrastructure. The site returned no content (empty page.html and page-text.txt), which is consistent with a cloaked or gated phishing page that only serves content to targeted victims or specific user agents. (location: domain: zgkxchijue.xyz)
hidden content
The page returned completely empty HTML and text content despite being a reachable URL. This blank/cloaked response is a known evasion technique used to hide malicious content from crawlers and scanners while serving payloads selectively to real users or targeted agents. (location: page.html, page-text.txt)
malicious redirect
TLS connection failed (connected=false, cert_valid=false) for the domain, yet the domain resolves and was scanned. A site that does not serve valid HTTPS but still operates may be using HTTP-based redirects or traffic interception, common in malicious redirect chains. (location: metadata.json: tls.connected=false, tls.cert_valid=false)
brand impersonation
The .xyz TLD combined with a randomized domain name and no legitimate content is a hallmark of domains registered to impersonate or ride on the coattails of legitimate brands via typosquatting or look-alike campaigns. No legitimate brand content could be confirmed or ruled out due to empty page content. (location: domain: zgkxchijue.xyz)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/zgkxchijue.xyzCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
zgkxchijue.xyz currently scores 45/100 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.