
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 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 148.163.69.213 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | DNS | Low | DNS server — potential for DNS amplification attacks |
| 1022 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1022 |
| 3306 | MySQL | High | MySQL database — should never be exposed to the internet |
| 6666 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 6666 |
| 7777 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 7777 |
| 8888 | HTTP-Alt | Low | Service on port 8888 |
⚠️ 1 high-risk port detected on 148.163.69.213. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12528 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12529 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-4051 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-4553 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-5824 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19132 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-4054 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10003 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 67 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
148.163.69.213 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
148.163.69.213 is registered in Phoenix, United States, operating on the network of Input Output Flood LLC. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 1 malicious requests, averaging approximately 1 requests per day. 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. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. United States currently accounts for 106 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. The score of 85/100 indicates a confirmed malicious actor. Network-level blocking is appropriate.
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.
XXE vulnerabilities in XML parsers allow attackers to read local files, perform SSRF, and execute denial of service attacks. Many legacy applications and APIs remain vulnerable to XXE due to insecure default XML parser configurations.
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.