IP Threat Report
185.245.105.66
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Form spam: no_js_check | Spam/malware keywords in request content | +0 | |
| POST seen | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| spam:no_js_check | Spam/malware keywords in request content | +0 |
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 185.245.105.66 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
📧 Content Abuse Prevention
IP 185.245.105.66 is flooding forms with spam. Implement time-based tokens and block IPs submitting more than 5 forms per hour.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 185.245.105.66: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 135 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 135 |
| 3389 | RDP | High | Remote Desktop Protocol — primary target for ransomware attacks |
⚠️ Network scanning reveals 1 dangerous service exposed on 185.245.105.66. Exposed RDP (3389) is the #1 entry point for ransomware attacks. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
185.245.105.66 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (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 Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 185.245.105.66, geolocated to Amsterdam, Netherlands, operating on the network of Servers Tech Fzco, as a source of suspicious network activity. Over a period of 101 days, this IP generated 22,756 malicious requests, averaging approximately 225.3 requests per day. 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 IP exhibits User-Agent manipulation, switching between different browser identities or sending empty headers. Our records show 178 malicious IPs originating from Netherlands, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 100/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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 Netherlands
185.184.192.251 (338)45.88.138.44 (320)45.82.64.236 (315)5.181.169.192 (313)157.22.73.141 (313)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 SQL Injection Campaigns
SQL injection remains one of the most common web attack vectors. Attackers inject malicious SQL code through input fields to extract database contents, modify data, or gain administrative access. Automated scanners test for SQLi vulnerabilities at massive scale.
💡 Behavioral Analysis vs Signature Detection
Signature-based detection matches known attack patterns but misses novel threats. Behavioral analysis identifies anomalies in request patterns, timing, and volume, catching zero-day attacks that signatures cannot recognize.