IP Threat Report
103.125.146.29
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 108 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 298 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 6 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 20 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 153 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 441 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 82 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 163 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 21 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Observed Activity
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Timeline
Network Provider
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 103.125.146.29 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 103.125.146.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 103.125.146.29 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 103.125.146.29.
Neighbors in 103.125.146.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Blacklist Status (DNSBL)
This IP was checked against major DNS-based blacklists used by mail servers and firewalls worldwide.
Checked: Spamhaus, SpamCop, Barracuda, SORBS, CBL, UCEProtect. Results may change over time.
Threat Analysis
103.125.146.29 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 103.125.146.29 has been traced to Tokyo, Japan, operating on the network of F.N.S. HOLDINGS LIMITED. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 3 malicious requests, averaging approximately 3 requests per day. This residential IP is likely a compromised consumer device. Home routers and IoT equipment with default credentials are prime targets for botnet operators. The dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 101 flagged addresses, Japan represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 255/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
This IP is classified as residential, suggesting it may belong to a compromised home device, IoT botnet member, or an infected personal computer. Residential IPs involved in attacks often indicate malware infection without the owner's knowledge.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 HTTP Header Analysis for Threat Detection
Examining HTTP headers beyond User-Agent reveals attack tools and automated scripts. Missing standard headers, unusual ordering, non-standard values, and inconsistencies with claimed client identity all serve as reliable detection signals.
💡 Bulletproof Hosting Ecosystem
Bulletproof hosting providers deliberately ignore abuse complaints, creating safe havens for malicious operations. These providers often operate in jurisdictions with weak cybercrime enforcement, offering services specifically marketed to criminal organizations.