IP Threat Report
20.214.142.73
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 13 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 28 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 11 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 37 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 24 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 51 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 43 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 48 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 172 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 |
Observed Activity
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Timeline
Network Provider
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 20.214.142.73 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 20.214.142.73.
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 20.214.142.73 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Blacklist Status (DNSBL)
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.
Threat Analysis
20.214.142.73 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 20.214.142.73, located in Seoul, South Korea, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. During its 2-day observation window, we recorded 24 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 12 per day on average. Classified as a hosting IP, this address likely runs on a rented server or cloud instance. Attackers prefer datacenter IPs for their high bandwidth and disposable nature. The dual attack vectors of Request Flooding combined with Path Enumeration indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. South Korea currently accounts for 102 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. A score of 255/100 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.
Related Threats
🇰🇷 Top threats from South Korea
4.217.180.34 (280)20.214.155.242 (280)20.214.157.214 (280)52.231.66.246 (280)20.194.25.241 (280)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 WordPress-Specific Attack Vectors
WordPress sites face constant automated attacks targeting xmlrpc.php for brute force amplification, wp-login.php for credential theft, and vulnerable plugins for remote code execution. Over 90% of CMS-based attacks specifically target WordPress installations.
💡 Email Authentication: SPF, DKIM, DMARC
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.