
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| POST requests present | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Add 189.97.240.225 to your firewall blocklist. Review logs for successful connections. Enable comprehensive logging on all public-facing services.
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.
189.97.240.225 has been assigned a threat score of 103/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
Network traffic from 189.97.240.225, located in Teresina, Brazil, operating on the network of Vivo, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 1 malicious requests, averaging approximately 1 requests per day. Operating from a residential network, this IP may represent a compromised home gateway or IoT device that has been drafted into a larger attack infrastructure. With 148 flagged addresses, Brazil represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 103/100, 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.
Modern attacks increasingly target APIs rather than traditional web interfaces. Attackers enumerate endpoints, test for broken authentication, and exploit excessive data exposure. API attacks are harder to detect as they mimic legitimate programmatic access patterns.
Watering hole attacks compromise websites frequently visited by target organizations. Rather than attacking targets directly, adversaries infect trusted resources, exploiting the inherent trust users place in regularly visited sites.