IP Threat Report
169.150.201.35
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 10/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 10/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 6/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA bot: python | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 |
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 169.150.201.35 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 169.150.201.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 169.150.201.35: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 169.150.201.35 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 169.150.201.35: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 169.150.201.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
169.150.201.35 has been assigned a threat score of 125/100 (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
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 169.150.201.35, geolocated to Frankfurt am Main, Germany, operating on the network of Datacamp Limited, as a source of suspicious network activity. Our sensors captured 562 malicious requests from this address across a 6-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~93.7 requests per day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Our records show 103 malicious IPs originating from Germany, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 125/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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
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.
💡 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.