
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 6 | 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 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 147.78.55.162 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2019-12521 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8517 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-32748 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18679 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12519 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18860 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18678 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28652 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10002 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19131 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-2390 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-3947 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19132 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 59 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
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.
147.78.55.162 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
147.78.55.162 is registered in London, United Kingdom, operating on the network of XT GLOBAL NETWORKS LTD.. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 1 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1 per day on average. Operating from a residential network, this IP may represent a compromised home gateway or IoT device that has been drafted into a larger attack infrastructure. The IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. United Kingdom currently accounts for 30 blocked IPs in our database, making it a notable source of malicious traffic. At 105/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
This IP is classified as residential, suggesting it may belong to a compromised home device, IoT botnet member, or an infected personal computer. Residential IPs involved in attacks often indicate malware infection without the owner's knowledge.
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.
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.