
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 196.51.132.140 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2019-12521 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28652 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18860 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18678 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12528 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33515 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18679 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46728 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49286 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
196.51.132.140 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
The address 196.51.132.140 originates from Providence, United States, operating on the network of DynaNode LLC. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 17-day observation window, we recorded 4 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 0.2 per day on average. 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 IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. Our records show 198 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. 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.
Command injection occurs when attackers insert operating system commands through application inputs. Successful exploitation grants direct server access, enabling data theft, malware installation, and lateral movement across networks.
Automated response systems can block threats in milliseconds, far faster than human analysts. However, automation requires careful safeguards — rate limits on blocking actions, automatic expiration, and human review queues prevent automated systems from causing self-inflicted outages.