
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 14/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 49/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 50/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 171 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 257 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 285 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Danger medium hits: 428 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 506 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 514 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 14 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 18 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 25 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 32 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 50 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 56 | 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.
Block scanning from 20.226.83.28: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 20.226.83.28.
Address UA spoofing from 20.226.83.28: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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.
20.226.83.28 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
20.226.83.28 is registered in São Paulo, Brazil, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. The address has been active for 2 days in our monitoring system, producing 1,005 flagged requests at a rate of ~502.5/day. Operating from datacenter infrastructure, this IP is typical of addresses used in organized attack operations. Cloud and VPS providers are commonly exploited as launching platforms for automated scanning. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Our records show 102 malicious IPs originating from Brazil, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 280/100 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.
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.
False positives erode trust in security systems and waste analyst resources. Effective management requires feedback loops, allowlisting mechanisms, contextual analysis, and regular tuning of detection rules based on operational experience.