
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 180 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 54 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 155 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 182 | 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 | |
| Burst: 39 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 112 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 46 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 146 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 41 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 131 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 42 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 139 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 105 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 56 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 164 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 178 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 44 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 145 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 123 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 135.225.32.40 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 135.225.32.40.
IP 135.225.32.40 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
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.
135.225.32.40 has been assigned a threat score of 230/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 135.225.32.40, geolocated to Gävle, Sweden, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, as a source of suspicious network activity. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 9 malicious requests, averaging approximately 9 requests per day. Classified as a hosting IP, this address likely runs on a rented server or cloud instance. Attackers prefer datacenter IPs for their high bandwidth and disposable nature. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 101 flagged addresses, Sweden represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 230/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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.
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
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.