
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| 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: 95 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 320 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 41 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 98 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 322 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 24 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 83 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 325 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 22 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 77 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 42 req / 10s | 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 20.114.221.114: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Block scanning from 20.114.221.114: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
IP 20.114.221.114 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
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.
20.114.221.114 has been assigned a threat score of 265/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 20.114.221.114, geolocated to Boydton, United States, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, as a source of suspicious network activity. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 9 flagged requests at a rate of ~9/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 diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 101 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 265/100 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.
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.
Email authentication protocols work together to prevent spoofing. SPF validates sending servers, DKIM provides cryptographic message signing, and DMARC defines enforcement policies. Full implementation significantly reduces phishing effectiveness.