IP Threat Report
162.240.14.171
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 30 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst: 30 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 30 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Imported from old blocklist | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 | |
| Burst: 29 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 12 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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 162.240.14.171 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
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 162.240.14.171 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 162.240.14.171.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | FTP | Medium | File Transfer Protocol — often targeted for anonymous login attacks |
| 26 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 26 |
| 53 | DNS | Low | DNS server — potential for DNS amplification attacks |
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 110 | POP3 | Low | Service on port 110 |
| 143 | IMAP | Low | Service on port 143 |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 465 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 465 |
| 587 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 587 |
| 993 | IMAPS | Low | Service on port 993 |
| 995 | POP3S | Low | Service on port 995 |
| 2082 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2082 |
| 2083 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2083 |
| 2086 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2086 |
| 2087 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2087 |
| 2095 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2095 |
| 2096 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2096 |
| 22022 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 22022 |
⚠️ Network scanning reveals 1 dangerous service exposed on 162.240.14.171. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2019-6110 | NVD → |
| CVE-2017-15906 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-2768 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-38408 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51767 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14145 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-20012 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-36368 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-32728 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-6109 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-41617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-26465 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-15919 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-15473 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51385 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-6111 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-48795 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-20685 | NVD → |
| CVE-2008-3844 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15778 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 20 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Consult NVD advisories for details.
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
162.240.14.171 has been assigned a threat score of 195/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 162.240.14.171 has been traced to Provo, United States, operating on the network of Unified Layer. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. During its 13-day observation window, we recorded 15 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1.2 per day on average. This residential IP is likely a compromised consumer device. Home routers and IoT equipment with default credentials are prime targets for botnet operators. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 103 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 195/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
This IP is classified as residential, suggesting it may belong to a compromised home device, IoT botnet member, or an infected personal computer. Residential IPs involved in attacks often indicate malware infection without the owner's knowledge.
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
💡 HTTP Request Smuggling
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.
💡 Automated Incident Response
Automated response systems can block threats in milliseconds, far faster than human analysts. However, automation requires careful safeguards — rate limits on blocking actions, automatic expiration, and human review queues prevent automated systems from causing self-inflicted outages.