IP Threat Report
155.2.215.82
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 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| 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 155.2.215.82 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 155.2.215.82: 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.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 155.2.215.82: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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
155.2.215.82 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 155.2.215.82, 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 620 malicious requests from this address across a 52-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~11.9 requests per day. This IP is identified as a VPN or proxy endpoint, commonly used to mask the true origin of attack traffic and bypass geographic or reputation-based blocking. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. United States currently accounts for 164 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. 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
💡 Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
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.
💡 IPv6 Scanning Challenges
The vast IPv6 address space makes traditional sequential scanning impractical. However, attackers use DNS records, certificate transparency logs, and predictable address patterns to identify active IPv6 hosts, adapting their techniques to the expanded address space.