
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Form spam: no_js_check | Spam/malware keywords in request content | +0 | |
| Probe 302→404 | 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.
Enable CAPTCHA on all public forms. Add honeypot fields. Rate-limit submissions to 3 per minute per IP. Deploy Akismet or CleanTalk.
Block scanning from 196.51.187.81: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 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-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12528 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12529 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-5824 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19132 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10003 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18678 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 56 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
196.51.187.81 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (High). This classifies it as a high-severity threat. Proactive blocking is recommended for sensitive infrastructure.
The following attack categories were identified:
196.51.187.81 is registered in Crugers, United States, operating on the network of DynaNode LLC. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. Our sensors captured 472 malicious requests from this address across a 78-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~6.1 requests per day. 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. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. United States currently accounts for 209 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. The score of 70/100 indicates a confirmed malicious actor. Network-level blocking is appropriate.
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.
SQL injection remains one of the most common web attack vectors. Attackers inject malicious SQL code through input fields to extract database contents, modify data, or gain administrative access. Automated scanners test for SQLi vulnerabilities at massive scale.
Blocking traffic from specific countries reduces attack surface but impacts legitimate international users. Effective geo-based policies use tiered approaches — blocking, rate limiting, or requiring additional verification based on risk assessment.