IP Threat Report
155.2.215.32
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Form spam: no_js_check | Spam/malware keywords in request content | +0 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
Observed Activity
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Timeline
Network Provider
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 155.2.215.32 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 155.2.215.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 155.2.215.32: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
📧 Spam Protection
Enable CAPTCHA on all public forms. Add honeypot fields. Rate-limit submissions to 3 per minute per IP. Deploy Akismet or CleanTalk.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 155.2.215.32 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Neighbors in 155.2.215.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Blacklist Status (DNSBL)
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.
Threat Analysis
155.2.215.32 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (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:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 155.2.215.32, located in Houston, United States, operating on the network of Datacamp Limited, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Our sensors captured 445 malicious requests from this address across a 54-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~8.2 requests per day. Classified as a VPN or proxy server, this IP serves as an anonymization layer. While VPNs have legitimate uses, this address has been observed routing clearly malicious traffic. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 163 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 100/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Brute Force Attack Mechanics
Brute force attacks systematically try username and password combinations to gain unauthorized access. Modern attacks leverage credential databases from previous breaches, testing millions of combinations using distributed botnets across multiple IP addresses.
💡 Container Security Challenges
Containerized applications face unique security challenges including vulnerable base images, excessive privileges, shared kernel attacks, and insecure orchestration configurations. Runtime security monitoring and immutable container policies mitigate these risks.