
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 167.160.165.25 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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 |
| 1344 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1344 |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| 52931 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 52931 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2019-12529 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-32748 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000027 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28651 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46724 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-13345 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000024 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33515 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19132 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18678 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 59 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
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.
167.160.165.25 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
The address 167.160.165.25 originates from Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of HostPapa. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 2 malicious requests, averaging approximately 2 requests per day. Operating from a residential network, this IP may represent a compromised home gateway or IoT device that has been drafted into a larger attack infrastructure. The IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. With 200 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 105/100 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.
WordPress sites face constant automated attacks targeting xmlrpc.php for brute force amplification, wp-login.php for credential theft, and vulnerable plugins for remote code execution. Over 90% of CMS-based attacks specifically target WordPress installations.
Blocking traffic from specific countries reduces attack surface but impacts legitimate international users. Effective geo-based policies use tiered approaches — blocking, rate limiting, or requiring additional verification based on risk assessment.