
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 135.136.20.14 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
135.136.20.14 has been assigned a threat score of 65/100 (High). This score indicates high threat severity. The IP has shown clear patterns of malicious behavior that warrant immediate defensive measures.
The following attack categories were identified:
Network traffic from 135.136.20.14, located in Manchester, United Kingdom, operating on the network of M247 Europe SRL, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. During its 7-day observation window, we recorded 273 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 39 per day on average. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. Detected suspicious User-Agent anomalies including empty, forged, or rapidly rotating UA strings — characteristic of automated scanning tools. With 123 flagged addresses, United Kingdom represents a significant presence in our threat database. The score of 65/100 warrants active monitoring and rate-limiting. Full blocking is advisable for sensitive systems.
This IP belongs to a hosting or data center provider. Malicious traffic from hosting infrastructure often originates from compromised VPS instances, rented servers used for scanning campaigns, or abused free-tier cloud accounts. Hosting providers typically respond to abuse reports within 24-72 hours.
WordPress sites face constant automated attacks targeting xmlrpc.php for brute force amplification, wp-login.php for credential theft, and vulnerable plugins for remote code execution. Over 90% of CMS-based attacks specifically target WordPress installations.
Blocking traffic from specific countries reduces attack surface but impacts legitimate international users. Effective geo-based policies use tiered approaches — blocking, rate limiting, or requiring additional verification based on risk assessment.