IP Threat Report
103.172.92.25
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 |
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 103.172.92.25 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
⚙️ Defensive Recommendations
Block 103.172.92.25 at the network perimeter. Implement defense-in-depth combining IP blocking with application-layer protections.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | FTP | Medium | File Transfer Protocol — often targeted for anonymous login attacks |
| 25 | SMTP | Medium | SMTP mail server — can be abused for spam relay |
| 106 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 106 |
| 110 | POP3 | Low | Service on port 110 |
| 143 | IMAP | Low | Service on port 143 |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 465 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 465 |
| 587 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 587 |
| 993 | IMAPS | Low | Service on port 993 |
| 3306 | MySQL | High | MySQL database — should never be exposed to the internet |
| 8880 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8880 |
⚠️ 2 high-risk ports detected on 103.172.92.25. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
103.172.92.25 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (High). At this threat level, the IP is considered high risk. Firewall rules should be updated to deny traffic from this source.
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 103.172.92.25, located in Mumbai, India, operating on the network of Leapswitch Networks Private Limited, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 2 flagged requests at a rate of ~2/day. The address is classified as residential, meaning it likely belongs to an end-user ISP connection. Malicious activity from residential IPs typically indicates device compromise or botnet membership. With 101 flagged addresses, India represents a significant presence in our threat database. The score of 70/100 indicates a confirmed malicious actor. Network-level blocking is appropriate.
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
🇮🇳 Top threats from India
49.248.192.204 (313)62.72.43.237 (305)4.188.251.0 (280)103.78.247.150 (280)4.213.99.137 (280)View all →🏢 Same network: AS132335
View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Brute Force Attack Mechanics
Brute force attacks systematically try username and password combinations to gain unauthorized access. Modern attacks leverage credential databases from previous breaches, testing millions of combinations using distributed botnets across multiple IP addresses.
💡 Container Security Challenges
Containerized applications face unique security challenges including vulnerable base images, excessive privileges, shared kernel attacks, and insecure orchestration configurations. Runtime security monitoring and immutable container policies mitigate these risks.