IP Threat Report
136.144.42.8
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 medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Directory Scan | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 | |
| UA changed | 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 136.144.42.8 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 136.144.42.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 136.144.42.8 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 136.144.42.8: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 136.144.42.0/24
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
136.144.42.8 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 136.144.42.8 has been traced to Washington, United States, operating on the network of F.N.S. HOLDINGS LIMITED. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Over a period of 40 days, this IP generated 802 malicious requests, averaging approximately 20.1 requests per day. This IP is identified as a VPN or proxy endpoint, commonly used to mask the true origin of attack traffic and bypass geographic or reputation-based blocking. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with User-Agent Anomaly indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. United States currently accounts for 151 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 100/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.214.122 (350)103.168.66.237 (340)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 File Upload Vulnerabilities
Insecure file upload functionality allows attackers to upload web shells, malware, or scripts that execute on the server. Proper validation must check file content, not just extensions, and uploaded files should be stored outside the web root.
💡 Machine Learning in Threat Detection
Machine learning models analyze vast amounts of network traffic to identify attack patterns invisible to rule-based systems. Supervised models classify known attack types while unsupervised models detect anomalies that may indicate novel threats.