
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 50 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 62 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 62 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 185.93.89.167 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 185.93.89.167.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2026-24072 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-58098 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0942 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33857 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-34032 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-34059 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-0796 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-53020 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0941 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-55753 | NVD → |
| CVE-2011-1176 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-4360 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-3526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-3566 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59775 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-65082 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-43204 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-5458 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33006 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-3205 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-23048 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-49812 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-66200 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-47252 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 36 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
185.93.89.167 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (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:
IP address 185.93.89.167 has been traced to Eygelshoven, Netherlands, operating on the network of Limited Network LTD. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 1 flagged requests at a rate of ~1/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 dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 145 malicious IPs originating from Netherlands, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. At 255/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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.
TLS fingerprinting creates unique identifiers based on how clients negotiate encrypted connections. The JA3 and JA4 methods generate hashes from TLS ClientHello parameters, enabling identification of specific tools and malware regardless of IP address changes.
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.