
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| POST requests present | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Block scanning from 185.225.40.146: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 8085 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8085 |
| 8090 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8090 |
| 8889 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8889 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-23419 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-44487 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-20372 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-16844 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-9513 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-3618 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-23017 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-16843 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-9511 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-9516 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-16845 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 11 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Consult NVD advisories for details.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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.
185.225.40.146 has been assigned a threat score of 103/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 185.225.40.146 to malicious activity originating from Qadsayyā, SY, operating on the network of sy-samaweb. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. Our sensors captured 7 malicious requests from this address across a 35-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~0.2 requests per day. The address is classified as residential, meaning it likely belongs to an end-user ISP connection. Malicious activity from residential IPs typically indicates device compromise or botnet membership. The IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. SY currently accounts for 47 blocked IPs in our database, making it a notable source of malicious traffic. A score of 103/100 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.
Brute force attacks systematically try username and password combinations to gain unauthorized access. Modern attacks leverage credential databases from previous breaches, testing millions of combinations using distributed botnets across multiple IP addresses.
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.