IP Threat Report
218.152.33.181
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 | |
| Danger medium hits: 10 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 12 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 15 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 20 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 25 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 30 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 35 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 5 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 7 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
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 218.152.33.181 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 218.152.33.181 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 218.152.33.181 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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
218.152.33.181 has been assigned a threat score of 130/100 (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
The address 218.152.33.181 originates from Seoul, South Korea, operating on the network of Korea Telecom. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Over a period of 23 days, this IP generated 849 malicious requests, averaging approximately 36.9 requests per day. Operating from a residential network, this IP may represent a compromised home gateway or IoT device that has been drafted into a larger attack infrastructure. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. With 110 flagged addresses, South Korea represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 130/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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
Security Intelligence
💡 Command Injection Techniques
Command injection occurs when attackers insert operating system commands through application inputs. Successful exploitation grants direct server access, enabling data theft, malware installation, and lateral movement across networks.
💡 Subnet-Level vs IP-Level Blocking
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.