
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 152.232.53.103 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| 21242 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 21242 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12528 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12522 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10003 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33515 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000024 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8517 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19131 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49286 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-37894 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18678 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
152.232.53.103 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
152.232.53.103 is registered in Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of HostPapa. 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. 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. Our records show 205 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. 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.
SSRF attacks trick servers into making requests to internal resources that should not be publicly accessible. This can expose cloud metadata endpoints, internal APIs, and private network services, potentially leading to full infrastructure compromise.
Expired, self-signed, or misconfigured TLS certificates create security vulnerabilities and trust issues. Certificate monitoring, automated renewal through ACME protocols, and proper certificate chain configuration prevent both security gaps and service disruptions.