
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 5 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +50 | |
| 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.
Block scanning from 196.51.69.166: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18678 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000027 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46724 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49286 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8517 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-5824 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49288 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 56 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
196.51.69.166 has been assigned a threat score of 95/100 (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:
IP address 196.51.69.166 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. Our sensors captured 1 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1 requests per day. Classified as a hosting IP, this address likely runs on a rented server or cloud instance. Attackers prefer datacenter IPs for their high bandwidth and disposable nature. 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 95/100 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.
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.
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.