
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| 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 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 |
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 196.51.69.215: 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-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-13345 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12519 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12525 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8517 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-37894 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18860 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-19132 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10003 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
196.51.69.215 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
Network traffic from 196.51.69.215, located in Tukwila, United States, operating on the network of DynaNode LLC, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Our sensors captured 3 malicious requests from this address across a 8-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~0.4 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. 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.
SSRF attacks trick servers into making requests to internal resources that should not be publicly accessible. This can expose cloud metadata endpoints, internal APIs, and private network services, potentially leading to full infrastructure compromise.
CAPTCHAs remain a primary bot defense but face increasing bypass rates from AI-powered solvers. Modern alternatives include invisible behavioral analysis, proof-of-work challenges, and device fingerprinting that detect bots without impacting user experience.