
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| UA bot: python | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 139.59.123.156 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Block scanning from 139.59.123.156: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 19 |
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 88 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 88 |
| 32100 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 32100 |
| 47808 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 47808 |
| 54321 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 54321 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-23419 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-44487 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 2 vulnerability entries on this host. Even a small number of CVEs can represent significant risk. 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.
139.59.123.156 has been assigned a threat score of 170/100 (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 139.59.123.156 has been traced to Singapore, Singapore, operating on the network of DIGITALOCEAN. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 3 flagged requests at a rate of ~3/day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. The dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Path Enumeration indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 140 flagged addresses, Singapore represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 170/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
TLS fingerprinting creates unique identifiers based on how clients negotiate encrypted connections. The JA3 and JA4 methods generate hashes from TLS ClientHello parameters, enabling identification of specific tools and malware regardless of IP address changes.
Border Gateway Protocol hijacking allows attackers to redirect internet traffic through their infrastructure. While less common than application-level attacks, BGP hijacks can intercept sensitive data, inject malware, or cause widespread service disruption.