context safety score
A score of 36/100 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
Domain 'zoomus.cn' closely mimics the legitimate Zoom brand ('zoom.us') by appending the TLD as part of the subdomain and using a Chinese ccTLD (.cn). This is a classic typosquatting/brand impersonation pattern targeting Zoom users, likely to deceive users into believing they are visiting the official Zoom platform. (location: domain: zoomus.cn)
phishing
The domain 'zoomus.cn' combines Zoom brand impersonation with a Chinese ccTLD to create a convincing phishing domain. The TLS certificate is invalid/not connected (connected=false, cert_valid=false), which is consistent with a phishing or credential-harvesting site that has not properly provisioned HTTPS, increasing risk to any users who interact with it. (location: domain: zoomus.cn, tls: connected=false, cert_valid=false)
credential harvesting
A site impersonating Zoom (a platform requiring user login) with invalid TLS and no verifiable certificate is highly consistent with a credential harvesting operation. Users tricked into visiting 'zoomus.cn' may be prompted to enter Zoom account credentials on a fake login page. (location: domain: zoomus.cn, tls.cert_valid=false)
malicious redirect
The domain 'zoomus.cn' failed TLS connection (connected=false), which may indicate the page is non-functional, parked, or configured to silently redirect users to another destination. The empty page content combined with active DNS/domain registration suggests potential redirect infrastructure. (location: domain: zoomus.cn, page.html: empty, tls: connected=false)
curl https://api.brin.sh/domain/zoomus.cnCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this domain in agent workflows.
zoomus.cn currently scores 36/100 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.
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.