context safety score
A score of 41/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.
malicious redirect
JavaScript calls window.location.replace(h) after CAPTCHA completion, redirecting to the original href stored in variable 'h'. The page also manipulates browser history with window.history.pushState('/','',' /') to mask the real URL, creating a deceptive navigation chain on archive.md impersonating a Cloudflare-style CAPTCHA gate for min-api.cryptocompare.com. (location: page.html:103-118, page.html:102-104)
social engineering
The page impersonates a Cloudflare CAPTCHA/DDoS protection interstitial ('One more step', 'Please complete the security check to access') to trick users and automated agents into believing they are on a legitimate bot-protection page. The reCAPTCHA sitekey '6LeQbtsSAAAAAHevV56qhVr_0JhQI7N-zTPoOoWJ' is annotated '// my' — distinct from the commented-out LinkedIn key — indicating a custom/attacker-controlled key impersonating legitimate services. (location: page.html:25-29, page.html:108-109)
brand impersonation
The page mimics the Cloudflare CAPTCHA challenge UI (layout, wording, reCAPTCHA widget, Cloudflare branding imagery embedded in base64 PNG) while hosted on archive.md. The URL path 'min-api.cryptocompare.com' impersonates the CryptoCompare API domain, suggesting the page lures victims expecting to access a crypto data API. (location: page.html:25-29, page.html:50-51, metadata.json:1)
hidden content
A div with 'position:absolute; left:-250px; top:-250px' is present, positioning content 250px off-screen and invisible to users. A setInterval script continuously corrects any absolutely-positioned element that drifts off-screen left, suggesting dynamic manipulation of hidden/visible content boundaries. (location: page.html:79-80, page.html:130-134)
malicious redirect
A setInterval beacon fires every 50 minutes (3,000,000ms) sending fetch requests to 'https://gyrovague.com/tag/<random_string>/' with referrerPolicy:'no-referrer' and mode:'no-cors'. This is covert exfiltration/tracking to an unrelated third-party domain (gyrovague.com), completely hidden from the user and designed to evade referrer-based detection. (location: page.html:136)
hidden content
Two suspicious base64 blobs are embedded as data URIs in background-image CSS properties (PNG images inline). These images could encode hidden payloads, steganographic data, or be used to fingerprint/track visitors while bypassing content security inspection. (location: page.html:50, page.html:51)
prompt injection
The HTML comment '<!-- brin-agent/1.0 -->' on line 14 appears to be an agent-targeting marker, potentially designed to signal or manipulate AI scanning agents (such as Brin) that process this page. Embedding agent-specific identifiers in page comments is a prompt injection vector targeting automated AI crawlers. (location: page.html:14)
curl https://api.brin.sh/page/archive.md%2Fmin-api.cryptocompare.comCommon questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this web page in agent workflows.
archive.md/min-api.cryptocompare.com 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.