IP Threat Report
217.21.93.65
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| DDoS / Flood | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 |
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
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 217.21.93.65 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
⚙️ Defensive Recommendations
Block 217.21.93.65 at the network perimeter. Implement defense-in-depth combining IP blocking with application-layer protections.
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
217.21.93.65 has been assigned a threat score of 180/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
📊 Threat Analysis
The address 217.21.93.65 originates from Mumbai, India, operating on the network of HOSTINGER IN. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Our sensors captured 296 malicious requests from this address across a 12-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~24.7 requests per day. Our records show 101 malicious IPs originating from India, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. At 180/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
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.
💡 False Positive Management
False positives erode trust in security systems and waste analyst resources. Effective management requires feedback loops, allowlisting mechanisms, contextual analysis, and regular tuning of detection rules based on operational experience.