
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: scanner | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| Danger strong hits: 7 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Burst: 5 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Danger strong hits: 5 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Address UA spoofing from 185.250.38.5: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
IP 185.250.38.5 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
IP 185.250.38.5 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 3389 | RDP | High | Remote Desktop Protocol — primary target for ransomware attacks |
| 5986 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 5986 |
⚠️ 1 high-risk port detected on 185.250.38.5. 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.
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.
185.250.38.5 has been assigned a threat score of 205/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 185.250.38.5, geolocated to Singapore, Singapore, operating on the network of Contabo Asia Private Limited, as a source of suspicious network activity. During its 19-day observation window, we recorded 6 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 0.3 per day on average. 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. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Singapore currently accounts for 135 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. A score of 205/100 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.
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.
Processing IP addresses for security purposes under GDPR requires balancing legitimate interest in network protection with data minimization principles. Threat intelligence platforms must implement appropriate retention policies and provide mechanisms for data subject rights.