IP Threat Report
193.142.146.55
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: scanner | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| Burst: 8 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 193.142.146.55 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
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 193.142.146.55 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 193.142.146.55 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Open Ports & Services
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 |
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-23419 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-23017 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-44487 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-3618 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 4 vulnerability entries on this host. Multiple vulnerabilities suggest gaps in patch management. Consult NVD advisories for details.
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
193.142.146.55 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 193.142.146.55 has been traced to Amsterdam, Netherlands, operating on the network of ColocaTel Inc.. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 12 malicious requests from this address across a 5-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~2.4 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 dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 103 malicious IPs originating from Netherlands, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A threat score of 85/100 places this IP in the high-risk category. Blocking at the firewall level is recommended.
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
💡 User-Agent Analysis Techniques
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.
💡 Responsible Disclosure Ethics
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.