
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 7 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 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 121.128.121.54 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 1723 | PPTP | Low | Service on port 1723 |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-37894 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41317 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46728 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49288 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28652 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25111 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28651 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28662 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-5824 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46724 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 35 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
121.128.121.54 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
IP address 121.128.121.54 has been traced to Ansan-si, South Korea, operating on the network of Korea Telecom. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. 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. Our records show 146 malicious IPs originating from South Korea, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 105/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
Prototype pollution manipulates JavaScript object prototypes to inject properties that affect all objects in an application. This can lead to denial of service, property injection, and in some cases remote code execution in Node.js applications.
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.