IP Threat Report
158.173.21.30
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 5 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Burst: 8 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 158.173.21.30 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 158.173.21.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 158.173.21.30 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Neighbors in 158.173.21.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Open Ports & Services
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 |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 502 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 502 |
| 1337 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1337 |
| 8443 | HTTPS-Alt | Low | Service on port 8443 |
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
158.173.21.30 has been assigned a threat score of 175/100 (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
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 158.173.21.30 to malicious activity originating from Amsterdam, Netherlands, operating on the network of Datacamp Limited. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 1 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1 per day on average. The address operates as a VPN/proxy exit node. Attackers route traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their real location and evade IP-based security controls. The IP is engaged in request flooding, sending traffic at rates designed to exhaust server capacity. With 118 flagged addresses, Netherlands represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 175/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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 Netherlands
185.184.192.251 (338)45.88.138.44 (320)45.82.64.236 (315)5.181.169.192 (313)157.22.73.141 (313)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Remote Code Execution (RCE)
RCE vulnerabilities allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on target servers. These critical flaws often arise from deserialization bugs, template injection, or file upload vulnerabilities, and represent the highest severity class of web application weaknesses.
💡 VPN Exit Node Reputation
VPN exit nodes aggregate traffic from many users, creating mixed reputation profiles. While legitimate users seek privacy, attackers exploit VPN services to anonymize malicious activity, making IP-based blocking of VPN nodes a complex policy decision.