IP Threat Report
203.159.81.107
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 386 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 752 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 9 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 32 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 98 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 245 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 31 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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 203.159.81.107 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 203.159.81.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 203.159.81.107: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 203.159.81.107.
Neighbors in 203.159.81.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
203.159.81.107 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 203.159.81.107 has been traced to Tel Aviv, IL, operating on the network of F.N.S. HOLDINGS LIMITED. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 2 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 2 per day on average. Classified as a VPN or proxy server, this IP serves as an anonymization layer. While VPNs have legitimate uses, this address has been observed routing clearly malicious traffic. The dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 101 flagged addresses, IL represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 255/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 TLS Fingerprinting (JA3/JA4)
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.
💡 Data Breach Impact Assessment
The impact of data breaches extends beyond immediate financial losses. Regulatory fines, legal liability, reputational damage, and customer churn create long-term costs that often exceed the direct costs of incident response and remediation.