IP Threat Report
159.203.126.173
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst 11/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 7/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| POST seen | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 |
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
We have detected 4068 malicious IPs from this autonomous system.
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 159.203.126.173 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 159.203.126.173.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 159.203.126.173: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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
159.203.126.173 has been assigned a threat score of 173/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 159.203.126.173, located in Clifton, United States, operating on the network of DigitalOcean, LLC, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. The address has been active for 6 days in our monitoring system, producing 181 flagged requests at a rate of ~30.2/day. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. Two attack patterns were identified (Request Flooding and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 36,227 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a major contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 173/100, 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.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.214.122 (350)216.73.160.52 (350)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
💡 Responsible Disclosure Ethics
Responsible disclosure balances public safety with giving vendors time to patch vulnerabilities. The security community generally supports coordinated disclosure timelines, but disagreements about appropriate timeframes and full disclosure continue to drive policy debates.