
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 24/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 25/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 87/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 88/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 89/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 91/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 182 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 185 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 186 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 278 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 83 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 91 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 109 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 29 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 30 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 60 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 76 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 79 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +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 168.62.180.116: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
IP 168.62.180.116 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
IP 168.62.180.116 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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.
168.62.180.116 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 168.62.180.116, geolocated to Boydton, United States, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, as a source of suspicious network activity. Our sensors captured 746 malicious requests from this address across a 3-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~248.7 requests per 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. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Our records show 17 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a notable contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 280/100, 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.
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.
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.