IP Threat Report
212.32.49.74
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 6 | 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 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 212.32.49.74 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 212.32.49.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 212.32.49.74: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Neighbors in 212.32.49.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 502 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 502 |
| 1337 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1337 |
| 8443 | HTTPS-Alt | Low | Service on port 8443 |
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
212.32.49.74 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 212.32.49.74 has been traced to Atlanta, United States, operating on the network of Zayo Bandwidth. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 1 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1 requests per day. 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 IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. United States currently accounts for 106 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 105/100, 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
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →🏢 Same network: AS6461
212.32.50.65 (180)212.32.50.248 (155)212.32.49.171 (95)212.32.49.11 (85)212.32.50.236 (85)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 API Abuse and Enumeration
Modern attacks increasingly target APIs rather than traditional web interfaces. Attackers enumerate endpoints, test for broken authentication, and exploit excessive data exposure. API attacks are harder to detect as they mimic legitimate programmatic access patterns.
💡 Email Authentication: SPF, DKIM, DMARC
Email authentication protocols work together to prevent spoofing. SPF validates sending servers, DKIM provides cryptographic message signing, and DMARC defines enforcement policies. Full implementation significantly reduces phishing effectiveness.