
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 13 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 15 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 43 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 45 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 55 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 176 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 840 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 101 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger strong hits: 410 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 96 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Block scanning from 194.5.82.35: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 194.5.82.35.
Address UA spoofing from 194.5.82.35: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
194.5.82.35 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
The following attack categories were identified:
194.5.82.35 is registered in Singapore, Singapore, operating on the network of GSL Networks Pty LTD. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. Our sensors captured 697 malicious requests from this address across a 83-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~8.4 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. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Our records show 157 malicious IPs originating from Singapore, 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.
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.
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.