
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 196.51.12.88 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12519 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12529 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12528 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49288 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33515 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10003 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 59 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
196.51.12.88 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
IP address 196.51.12.88 has been traced to Tukwila, United States, operating on the network of DynaNode 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. 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. The IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. United States currently accounts for 198 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. A score of 105/100 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.
WordPress sites face constant automated attacks targeting xmlrpc.php for brute force amplification, wp-login.php for credential theft, and vulnerable plugins for remote code execution. Over 90% of CMS-based attacks specifically target WordPress installations.
Bulletproof hosting providers deliberately ignore abuse complaints, creating safe havens for malicious operations. These providers often operate in jurisdictions with weak cybercrime enforcement, offering services specifically marketed to criminal organizations.