
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 23/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 24/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 78/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 81/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 84/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 85/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 86/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 87/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 157 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 262 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 272 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 409 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 411 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 76 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 17 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 28 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 30 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 37 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 45 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 52 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 20.151.224.190 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
IP 20.151.224.190 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
IP 20.151.224.190 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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.
20.151.224.190 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:
The address 20.151.224.190 originates from Toronto, Canada, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 358 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 358 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 diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. Canada currently accounts for 111 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. At 280/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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.
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
Buffer overflow vulnerabilities remain relevant in C/C++ applications despite decades of mitigation efforts. Modern protections like ASLR, stack canaries, and DEP reduce exploitability but determined attackers continue finding bypass techniques.