
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 15/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 17/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 18/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 21/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 60/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 75/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 76/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 18 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 273 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 411 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 546 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 117 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 14 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 234 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 235 | 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 20.9.15.100 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 20.9.15.100.
Address UA spoofing from 20.9.15.100: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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.
20.9.15.100 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:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 20.9.15.100 to malicious activity originating from Des Moines, United States, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. During its 6-day observation window, we recorded 1,126 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 187.7 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 17 flagged addresses, United States represents a notable presence in our threat database. 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.
Automated response systems can block threats in milliseconds, far faster than human analysts. However, automation requires careful safeguards — rate limits on blocking actions, automatic expiration, and human review queues prevent automated systems from causing self-inflicted outages.