IP Threat Report
216.24.210.200
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 |
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 216.24.210.200 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 216.24.210.0/24
- 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 216.24.210.200: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 216.24.210.200: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 216.24.210.0/24
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
216.24.210.200 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
The address 216.24.210.200 originates from Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of Ipxo LLC. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Our sensors captured 32 malicious requests from this address across a 61-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~0.5 requests per day. This residential IP is likely a compromised consumer device. Home routers and IoT equipment with default credentials are prime targets for botnet operators. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with User-Agent Anomaly indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 217 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 100/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
This IP is classified as residential, suggesting it may belong to a compromised home device, IoT botnet member, or an infected personal computer. Residential IPs involved in attacks often indicate malware infection without the owner's knowledge.
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 →Security Intelligence
💡 Brute Force Attack Mechanics
Brute force attacks systematically try username and password combinations to gain unauthorized access. Modern attacks leverage credential databases from previous breaches, testing millions of combinations using distributed botnets across multiple IP addresses.
💡 Submarine Cable and Internet Exchange Points
Internet traffic routing through a limited number of submarine cables and exchange points creates natural chokepoints. Understanding these routing patterns helps explain geographic clustering of certain attack types and latency-based scanning behaviors.