
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Block scanning from 162.241.49.35: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 22022 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 22022 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2023-48795 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15778 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-6111 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-15919 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-32728 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51385 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-41617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51767 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-2768 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-6110 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-26465 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14145 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-6109 | NVD → |
| CVE-2017-15906 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-20012 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-38408 | NVD → |
| CVE-2008-3844 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-36368 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-15473 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-20685 | 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
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.
162.241.49.35 has been assigned a threat score of 90/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 162.241.49.35, geolocated to Provo, United States, operating on the network of Network Solutions, LLC, as a source of suspicious network activity. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 2 flagged requests at a rate of ~2/day. The address is classified as residential, meaning it likely belongs to an end-user ISP connection. Malicious activity from residential IPs typically indicates device compromise or botnet membership. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. With 108 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 90/100 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.
SQL injection remains one of the most common web attack vectors. Attackers inject malicious SQL code through input fields to extract database contents, modify data, or gain administrative access. Automated scanners test for SQLi vulnerabilities at massive scale.
Effective rate limiting must balance protection against abuse with allowing legitimate traffic bursts. Sliding window algorithms, token buckets, and adaptive thresholds based on client reputation provide layered defense against flooding attacks.