
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 6 | 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 196.51.12.223 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28652 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49288 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33515 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46724 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-13345 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10002 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18679 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12522 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49286 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 59 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
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.
196.51.12.223 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
Network traffic from 196.51.12.223, located in Tukwila, United States, operating on the network of DynaNode LLC, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 1 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1 per day on average. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. Our records show 198 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. 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 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.
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.
GraphQL APIs introduce specific vulnerabilities including introspection information disclosure, query complexity attacks, batching abuse, and authorization bypass through nested queries. Depth limiting, cost analysis, and field-level authorization address these GraphQL-specific threats.