
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst 14/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 16/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer | 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.
We have detected 92 malicious IPs from this autonomous system.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 172.59.106.198.
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.
172.59.106.198 has been assigned a threat score of 80/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
Network traffic from 172.59.106.198, located in Milwaukee, United States, operating on the network of T-Mobile USA, Inc., has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Over a period of 5 days, this IP generated 221 malicious requests, averaging approximately 44.2 requests per day. This is a mobile network IP. While mobile addresses are typically shared via CGNAT, persistent malicious activity from this specific address suggests automated abuse. Rate-based attacks from this IP aim to overwhelm server resources through high-volume request flooding. With 36,319 flagged addresses, United States represents a major presence in our threat database. At 80/100, this IP warrants immediate defensive action.
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.
Responsible disclosure balances public safety with giving vendors time to patch vulnerabilities. The security community generally supports coordinated disclosure timelines, but disagreements about appropriate timeframes and full disclosure continue to drive policy debates.