
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 102/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 15/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 16/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 29/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 54/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 55/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 56/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 57/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 139 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 277 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 281 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 651 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 838 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 120 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 17 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 20 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 26 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 34 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 92 | 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 20.212.33.130 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 20.212.33.130.
IP 20.212.33.130 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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.
20.212.33.130 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
The address 20.212.33.130 originates from Singapore, Singapore, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 7-day observation window, we recorded 1,326 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 189.4 per day on average. 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. The combination of 3 distinct attack vectors indicates a sophisticated, multi-pronged threat actor deploying automated tools that probe multiple attack surfaces simultaneously. Singapore currently accounts for 110 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.
Processing IP addresses for security purposes under GDPR requires balancing legitimate interest in network protection with data minimization principles. Threat intelligence platforms must implement appropriate retention policies and provide mechanisms for data subject rights.