IP Threat Report
170.101.96.75
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 | |
| Burst 6/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
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 170.101.96.75 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 170.101.96.0/24
- 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 170.101.96.75 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 170.101.96.75 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 170.101.96.75: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 170.101.96.0/24
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
170.101.96.75 has been assigned a threat score of 60/100 (High). At this threat level, the IP is considered high risk. Firewall rules should be updated to deny traffic from this source.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
The address 170.101.96.75 originates from Chicago, United States, operating on the network of GTHost. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 13-day observation window, we recorded 1,356 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 104.3 per day on average. 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. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 110 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 60/100, this IP presents a meaningful threat. Implement rate limiting with escalation to blocking.
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
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.214.122 (350)216.73.160.52 (350)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →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.
💡 Submarine Cable and Internet Exchange Points
Internet traffic routing through a limited number of submarine cables and exchange points creates natural chokepoints. Understanding these routing patterns helps explain geographic clustering of certain attack types and latency-based scanning behaviors.