
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 8 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 192.126.167.220 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 1344 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1344 |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-13345 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12519 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8517 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-37894 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18860 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19132 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10003 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 56 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
192.126.167.220 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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 192.126.167.220 has been traced to Seattle, United States, operating on the network of EliteWork LLC. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 1 malicious requests, averaging approximately 1 requests per day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. The IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. With 138 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 105/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
Path traversal attacks attempt to access files outside the intended directory by manipulating file path references. Attackers use sequences like ../ to reach sensitive system files such as /etc/passwd or application configuration files.
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.