context safety score
A score of 41/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
social engineering
Page impersonates a Cloudflare CAPTCHA/DDoS protection challenge ('One more step', 'Please complete the security check to access') to trick users into believing they are on a legitimate security gateway. The page is served from archive.md but uses Cloudflare-style UI and language to create false trust. (location: page.html:25-29, page-text.txt:10-14)
brand impersonation
The page clones the visual design and exact wording of Cloudflare's CAPTCHA interstitial challenge page, including the reCAPTCHA widget, the 'Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA?' FAQ section, and Cloudflare-style layout. It uses a custom sitekey ('6LeQbtsSAAAAAHevV56qhVr_0JhQI7N-zTPoOoWJ') rather than the legitimate site's key, with a commented-out reference to LinkedIn's real sitekey ('6Lc7CQMTAAAAAIL84V_tPRYEWZtljsJQJZ5jSijw'), suggesting intentional impersonation of a Cloudflare challenge protecting a LinkedIn-like resource. (location: page.html:107-109, page-text.txt:92-94)
malicious redirect
After CAPTCHA completion, the script sends the user's full current URL (including any sensitive hash/query parameters) via POST to '/cdn-cgi/l/chk_captcha' along with the reCAPTCHA response token, then calls window.location.replace(h) or window.location.reload() — standard Cloudflare flow but on a non-Cloudflare domain (archive.md), meaning this endpoint is under attacker control and can redirect to any destination after harvesting the token and URL. (location: page.html:111-124, page-text.txt:96-106)
hidden content
A div element is positioned off-screen at left:-250px, top:-250px using absolute positioning, effectively hiding it from view while keeping it in the DOM. This is a classic hidden content technique used to conceal text or instructions from human users while remaining accessible to scrapers or agents. (location: page.html:79 (style: left:-250px; top:-250px; position:absolute))
prompt injection
An HTML comment '<!-- brin-agent/1.0 -->' is embedded in the page source. This appears to be a fingerprinting or agent-targeting marker specifically aimed at AI/automated scanning agents (like Brin), potentially used to identify when the page is being inspected by an agent and serve different content or responses. (location: page.html:14)
malicious redirect
A setInterval call makes periodic fetch requests every 3,000,000ms (50 minutes) to a random path under 'https://gyrovague.com/tag/<random_string>/' with referrerPolicy:'no-referrer' and mode:'no-cors'. This beacon-style call to an off-domain third-party (gyrovague.com) with randomized paths is consistent with covert tracking, session beaconing, or exfiltration of visitor presence data. The no-referrer/no-cors settings are designed to obscure the request origin. (location: page.html:136, page-text.txt:121)
credential harvesting
The CAPTCHA callback transmits the full original URL (variable 'h' = window.location.href) along with the reCAPTCHA token to the server-controlled endpoint '/cdn-cgi/l/chk_captcha'. If the original URL contains credentials, session tokens, or sensitive parameters in the hash or query string, they are harvested by the server. Additionally, the script manipulates window.history.pushState to overwrite the URL to '/', potentially obscuring the original destination from the user. (location: page.html:102-104, 112-114, page-text.txt:87-89, 99)
curl https://api.brin.sh/page/archive.md%2FfhzldCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this web page in agent workflows.
archive.md/fhzld currently scores 41/100 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 web page.
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.