IP Threat Report
109.105.209.17
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| POST requests present | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 | |
| UA bot: python | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
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 109.105.209.17 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 109.105.209.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 109.105.209.17: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 109.105.209.17: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 109.105.209.0/24
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
109.105.209.17 has been assigned a threat score of 108/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
109.105.209.17 is registered in Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of Zenlayer Inc. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. The address has been active for 84 days in our monitoring system, producing 500 flagged requests at a rate of ~6/day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 62 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a notable contributor to global threat activity. A score of 108/100 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
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
98.98.100.164 (295)98.98.100.212 (240)23.248.167.84 (145)172.247.34.158 (140)69.17.7.20 (135)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Credential Stuffing at Scale
Credential stuffing uses stolen username-password pairs from data breaches to attempt logins across many websites. Since users frequently reuse passwords, these automated attacks achieve success rates of 0.1-2%, which translates to thousands of compromised accounts from millions of attempts.
💡 Responsible Disclosure Ethics
Responsible disclosure balances public safety with giving vendors time to patch vulnerabilities. The security community generally supports coordinated disclosure timelines, but disagreements about appropriate timeframes and full disclosure continue to drive policy debates.