
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 185.2.100.92 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
185.2.100.92 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (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:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 185.2.100.92 to malicious activity originating from an unknown location. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 40 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 40 per day on average. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. The score of 85/100 indicates a confirmed malicious actor. Network-level blocking is appropriate.
Vulnerability scanning is the automated process of probing web applications for known weaknesses. Attackers use tools like Nuclei, Nikto, and ZAP to test thousands of hosts per hour, looking for exposed configuration files, outdated software, and default credentials.
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.