
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 50 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 420 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 64 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 200 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 39 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 117 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 34 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst: 36 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 124 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Burst: 44 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 146 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 45 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 138 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 145 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 57 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 192 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 66 req / 2s | 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 20.251.59.119: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
IP 20.251.59.119 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 20.251.59.119.
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.
20.251.59.119 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:
The address 20.251.59.119 originates from Lorenskog, Norway, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 9 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 9 per day on average. 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. With 101 flagged addresses, Norway represents a significant presence in our threat database. 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.
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
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.