
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 51 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 331 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 57 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 195 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 36 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst: 65 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 200 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 37 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 326 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 56 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 182 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 49 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 150 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 41 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 108 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 68 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Address UA spoofing from 20.100.201.203: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Block scanning from 20.100.201.203: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 20.100.201.203.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
20.100.201.203 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
The following attack categories were identified:
Network traffic from 20.100.201.203, located in Lorenskog, Norway, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Our sensors captured 7 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~7 requests per day. 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 combination of 3 distinct attack vectors indicates a sophisticated, multi-pronged threat actor deploying automated tools that probe multiple attack surfaces simultaneously. Norway currently accounts for 101 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 280/100, 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.
Examining HTTP headers beyond User-Agent reveals attack tools and automated scripts. Missing standard headers, unusual ordering, non-standard values, and inconsistencies with claimed client identity all serve as reliable detection signals.
Tor exit nodes are publicly listed but constantly rotating. While Tor serves essential privacy functions for journalists and activists, it is also used to anonymize attacks. Effective security policies differentiate between blocking and monitoring Tor traffic.