
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 37 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 326 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 47 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 169 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 35 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 297 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 48 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 172 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 29 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 42 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 46 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 26 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst: 38 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 126 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 158.158.120.192 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Block scanning from 158.158.120.192: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 158.158.120.192.
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.
158.158.120.192 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (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:
Network traffic from 158.158.120.192, located in Madrid, Spain, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 4 flagged requests at a rate of ~4/day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 114 flagged addresses, Spain represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 280/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
This IP belongs to a hosting or data center provider. Malicious traffic from hosting infrastructure often originates from compromised VPS instances, rented servers used for scanning campaigns, or abused free-tier cloud accounts. Hosting providers typically respond to abuse reports within 24-72 hours.
Examining HTTP headers beyond User-Agent reveals attack tools and automated scripts. Missing standard headers, unusual ordering, non-standard values, and inconsistencies with claimed client identity all serve as reliable detection signals.
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.