
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directory Scan | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Add 142.147.111.230 to your firewall blocklist. Review logs for successful connections. Enable comprehensive logging on all public-facing services.
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.
142.147.111.230 has been assigned a threat score of 95/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The address 142.147.111.230 originates from Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of Sprious LLC, Blazing SEO, LLC. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Our sensors captured 190 malicious requests from this address across a 110-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1.7 requests per day. United States currently accounts for 109 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 95/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
Responsible disclosure balances public safety with giving vendors time to patch vulnerabilities. The security community generally supports coordinated disclosure timelines, but disagreements about appropriate timeframes and full disclosure continue to drive policy debates.