IP Threat Report
185.132.187.73
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 378 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 970 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 65 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 200 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 102 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Burst: 59 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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 185.132.187.73 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 185.132.187.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 185.132.187.73 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 185.132.187.73.
Neighbors in 185.132.187.0/24
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
185.132.187.73 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 185.132.187.73 to malicious activity originating from Brussels, Belgium, operating on the network of F.N.S. HOLDINGS LIMITED. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. Our sensors captured 2 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~2 requests per day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. Two attack patterns were identified (User-Agent Anomaly and Request Flooding), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 103 malicious IPs originating from Belgium, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 255/100 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.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 User-Agent Analysis Techniques
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
💡 Machine Learning in Threat Detection
Machine learning models analyze vast amounts of network traffic to identify attack patterns invisible to rule-based systems. Supervised models classify known attack types while unsupervised models detect anomalies that may indicate novel threats.