IP Threat Report
110.249.202.5
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: spider | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Imported from old blocklist | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 | |
| Burst: 5 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 17 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 110.249.202.5 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 110.249.202.0/24
- 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 110.249.202.5 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 110.249.202.5: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 110.249.202.5.
Neighbors in 110.249.202.0/24
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
110.249.202.5 has been assigned a threat score of 120/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 110.249.202.5, geolocated to Chengde, China, operating on the network of China Unicom Hebei Province Network, as a source of suspicious network activity. The address has been active for 77 days in our monitoring system, producing 13 flagged requests at a rate of ~0.2/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. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. China currently accounts for 191 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. At 120/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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.
💡 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.