
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 52 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 652 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 41 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 107 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 50 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 489 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 138 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 9 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 238 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 43 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 125 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 49 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 486 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 45 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 128 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Address UA spoofing from 20.238.75.27: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Block scanning from 20.238.75.27: 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 20.238.75.27.
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.
20.238.75.27 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:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 20.238.75.27, geolocated to Dublin, Ireland, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation, as a source of suspicious network activity. Our sensors captured 4 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~4 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. Our records show 101 malicious IPs originating from Ireland, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. 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.
TLS fingerprinting creates unique identifiers based on how clients negotiate encrypted connections. The JA3 and JA4 methods generate hashes from TLS ClientHello parameters, enabling identification of specific tools and malware regardless of IP address changes.
Containerized applications face unique security challenges including vulnerable base images, excessive privileges, shared kernel attacks, and insecure orchestration configurations. Runtime security monitoring and immutable container policies mitigate these risks.