
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| 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.
Block scanning from 152.232.47.91: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| 21242 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 21242 |
| 52931 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 52931 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2021-28651 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28652 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000027 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-37894 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18679 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49288 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12521 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46728 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 59 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. 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.
152.232.47.91 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (High). At this threat level, the IP is considered high risk. Firewall rules should be updated to deny traffic from this source.
The following attack categories were identified:
IP address 152.232.47.91 has been traced to Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of HostPapa. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. The address has been active for 5 days in our monitoring system, producing 2 flagged requests at a rate of ~0.4/day. The address is classified as residential, meaning it likely belongs to an end-user ISP connection. Malicious activity from residential IPs typically indicates device compromise or botnet membership. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. With 202 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 70/100, this IP warrants immediate defensive action.
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.
Zero trust eliminates implicit trust based on network location. Every access request is verified regardless of source, minimizing the impact of compromised credentials or network breaches. Implementation requires strong identity verification and continuous authorization.