context safety score
A score of 46/100 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
The domain 'zohocal.com' impersonates Zoho, a well-known SaaS brand offering productivity and calendar services (Zoho Calendar). The domain combines 'zoho' with 'cal' (short for calendar), closely mimicking Zoho's legitimate services to deceive users into believing they are interacting with an official Zoho property. (location: domain: zohocal.com)
phishing
The domain 'zohocal.com' is likely a phishing site targeting Zoho users. It typosquats/impersonates the Zoho brand with a calendar-themed subdomain variant. The TLS certificate is invalid (connected=false, cert_valid=false), which is consistent with a hastily-deployed phishing infrastructure that lacks proper SSL configuration. (location: domain: zohocal.com, TLS metadata)
credential harvesting
A domain impersonating Zoho Calendar (zohocal.com) with no valid TLS and no resolvable content is a strong indicator of a credential harvesting operation targeting Zoho account credentials. Users lured to this domain expecting a Zoho login page would be at risk of submitting credentials to an attacker-controlled site. (location: domain: zohocal.com, metadata.json TLS fields)
malicious redirect
The site returned empty page content (page.html and page-text.txt are both empty) despite being a registered domain. This is consistent with a parked or redirect-based attack where the page may serve as a redirect intermediary, or the content is only served under specific conditions (e.g., specific user-agents, referrers, or geolocations) to evade automated scanners. (location: page.html, page-text.txt (empty content))
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/zohocal.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
zohocal.com 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.