Is https://nayvito.com/pelaseyed safe?

suspiciouslow confidence
21/100

context safety score

A score of 21/100 indicates multiple risk signals were detected. This entity shows patterns commonly associated with malicious intent.

identity
20
behavior
80
content
0
graph
30

7 threat patterns detected

critical

phishing

Page on nayvito.com (5-day-old domain) impersonates X/Twitter's copyright violation appeal process. Uses fake 'Copyright Violation Notice' targeting user @pelaseyed (homanp) to trick victims into entering credentials. The domain nayvito.com has no relation to X/Twitter (x.com/twitter.com). Uses X's official SVG logo, verified badge icons, and the victim's real Twitter profile image from pbs.twimg.com to appear legitimate. (location: page.html: entire page structure, lines 1-592)

critical

credential harvesting

Multi-stage credential harvesting form collects: (1) X/Twitter password via input#x_password, (2) 2FA authenticator app codes via input#2fa_app_code, (3) SMS verification codes via input#2fa_sms_code, (4) Email 2FA codes via input#2fa_email_code, (5) 2FA backup codes via input#2fa_backup_code, (6) Email address and phone number via input#contact_email and input#contact_phone. Each step includes retry forms to extract credentials twice. JavaScript handlers (handleLogin, handle2FAApp, handle2FASMS, handle2FAEmail, handle2FABackup, handleContactInfo) submit stolen data to the attacker's server. (location: page.html: lines 187-526, password input at line 189, 2FA app code at line 284, SMS code at line 350, email/phone at lines 416-422, email 2FA at line 453, backup code at line 519)

critical

credential harvesting

Page requests upload of government-issued identity documents (passport, driver's license, business license) via file upload input#id_upload accepting images and PDFs. This enables identity theft beyond just account takeover. (location: page.html: lines 555-565, upload form in #upload_id_section)

critical

brand impersonation

Page precisely replicates X/Twitter's UI including: X logo SVG (exact path data from official X branding), blue verified badge SVGs, Twitter CDN profile images (pbs.twimg.com), X-style header with search bar/notification/message icons, footer with '© 2026 X Corp.' and links to Terms of Service/Privacy Policy/Cookie Policy. Page title is 'Appeal Process' to mimic official X procedures. (location: page.html: X logo SVG at lines 17-21 and 53-57, verified badges throughout, footer copyright at line 138, profile images from pbs.twimg.com at lines 40, 87, 171)

critical

social engineering

Uses urgent copyright violation/DMCA pretext to pressure victims into immediate action. Claims 'Your content contains copyrighted material' with status 'Objection in Progress' and dynamically generated current date (March 2, 2026). The multi-step verification flow (password -> 2FA -> email/phone -> ID upload) mimics legitimate account recovery, creating false sense of security. Error retry screens ('password incorrect, try again') are designed to extract credentials multiple times. (location: page.html: violation notice at lines 59-78, multi-step flow across hidden sections lines 144-571)

high

hidden content

Multiple credential harvesting form sections are hidden with 'display: none' style, revealed progressively via JavaScript: #waiting_section, #password_wrong_section, #2fa_app_section, #2fa_app_wrong_section, #2fa_sms_section, #2fa_sms_wrong_section, #contact_info_section, #2fa_email_section, #2fa_email_wrong_section, #2fa_backup_section, #upload_id_section. This multi-stage approach hides the full extent of data collection from initial page inspection. (location: page.html: hidden sections from line 207 to line 571, each with style='display: none')

high

social engineering

Page is personalized to target a specific X/Twitter user (@pelaseyed / homanp) using their real profile picture from Twitter's CDN and verified badge. The embedded JavaScript contains session tracking data including IP address, user agent, timestamp, and session ID, indicating server-side victim tracking and targeted phishing campaign. (location: page.html: lines 575-589, userData object with IP, userAgent, sessionId, username)

API

curl https://api.brin.sh/page/https%3A%2F%2Fnayvito.com%2Fpelaseyed

FAQ: how to interpret this assessment

Common questions teams ask before deciding whether to use this web page in agent workflows.

Is https://nayvito.com/pelaseyed safe for AI agents to use?

https://nayvito.com/pelaseyed currently scores 21/100 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.

How should I interpret the score and verdict?

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.

How does brin compute this web page score?

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.

What do identity, behavior, content, and graph mean for this web page?

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.

Why does brin scan packages, repos, skills, MCP servers, pages, and commits?

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.

Can I rely on a safe verdict as a full security guarantee?

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.

When should I re-check before using an entity?

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.

Last Scanned

March 2, 2026

Verdict Scale

safe80–100
caution50–79
suspicious20–49
dangerous0–19

Disclaimer

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.

start scoring agent dependencies.

integrate brin in minutes — one GET request is all it takes. query the api, browse the registry, or download the full dataset.