
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 12/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 29/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 41/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 43/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 122 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 244 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 29 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 369 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 64 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 12 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger strong hits: 21 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 6 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 8 | 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 20.210.116.141 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 20.210.116.141.
Address UA spoofing from 20.210.116.141: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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.
20.210.116.141 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
Network traffic from 20.210.116.141, located in Tokyo, Japan, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Over a period of 4 days, this IP generated 1,204 malicious requests, averaging approximately 301 requests per day. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Japan currently accounts for 106 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.
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.
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.