
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 8 | 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 196.51.59.176 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
196.51.59.176 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
Network traffic from 196.51.59.176, 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. 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. United States currently accounts for 198 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. 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.
RCE vulnerabilities allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on target servers. These critical flaws often arise from deserialization bugs, template injection, or file upload vulnerabilities, and represent the highest severity class of web application weaknesses.
Satellite internet introduces unique security challenges including high latency that affects real-time threat detection, shared bandwidth that enables traffic sniffing, and coverage areas that cross multiple jurisdictions complicating legal response.