
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 107.175.152.12 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 1344 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1344 |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| 21242 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 21242 |
| 52951 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 52951 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000024 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12521 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000027 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12519 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10002 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8517 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28651 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-5824 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18679 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 56 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Consult NVD advisories for details.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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.
107.175.152.12 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.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 107.175.152.12, geolocated to Buffalo, United States, operating on the network of HostPapa, as a source of suspicious network activity. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 1 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1 per day on average. 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. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. With 199 flagged addresses, United States 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.
Modern attacks increasingly target APIs rather than traditional web interfaces. Attackers enumerate endpoints, test for broken authentication, and exploit excessive data exposure. API attacks are harder to detect as they mimic legitimate programmatic access patterns.
Email authentication protocols work together to prevent spoofing. SPF validates sending servers, DKIM provides cryptographic message signing, and DMARC defines enforcement policies. Full implementation significantly reduces phishing effectiveness.