IP Threat Report
194.32.120.216
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst 22/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 6/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 100 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 48 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| UA bot: Go-http-client | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 |
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 194.32.120.216 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 194.32.120.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 194.32.120.216.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 194.32.120.216: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 194.32.120.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
194.32.120.216 has been assigned a threat score of 270/100 (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
The address 194.32.120.216 originates from London, United Kingdom, operating on the network of UK Dedicated Servers Limited. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 3-day observation window, we recorded 148 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 49.3 per day on average. Operating from datacenter infrastructure, this IP is typical of addresses used in organized attack operations. Cloud and VPS providers are commonly exploited as launching platforms for automated scanning. Two attack patterns were identified (Request Flooding and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. With 109 flagged addresses, United Kingdom represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 270/100 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.
Related Threats
🇬🇧 Top threats from United Kingdom
104.28.240.60 (340)104.28.208.60 (340)91.230.225.239 (305)91.230.225.147 (305)185.92.25.78 (305)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
💡 Email Authentication: SPF, DKIM, DMARC
Email authentication protocols work together to prevent spoofing. SPF validates sending servers, DKIM provides cryptographic message signing, and DMARC defines enforcement policies. Full implementation significantly reduces phishing effectiveness.