IP Threat Report
216.73.163.129
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: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| 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 216.73.163.129 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 216.73.163.0/24
- 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 216.73.163.129: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 216.73.163.129: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 216.73.163.0/24
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
216.73.163.129 has been assigned a threat score of 90/100 (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 216.73.163.129 has been traced to San Francisco, United States, operating on the network of Bandito Networks. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. The address has been active for 59 days in our monitoring system, producing 181 flagged requests at a rate of ~3.1/day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 151 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 90/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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
💡 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Attacks
XSS attacks inject malicious scripts into web pages viewed by other users. Reflected XSS uses crafted URLs, while stored XSS persists in databases. Both types can steal session cookies, redirect users, or deface websites.
💡 Automated Incident Response
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.