
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| 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: 5 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +50 | |
| 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 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 23.106.16.116 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Address UA spoofing from 23.106.16.116: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
23.106.16.116 has been assigned a threat score of 130/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
The following attack categories were identified:
23.106.16.116 is registered in an unknown location. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 69 malicious requests, averaging approximately 69 requests per day. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with User-Agent Anomaly indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. A score of 130/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.
WordPress sites face constant automated attacks targeting xmlrpc.php for brute force amplification, wp-login.php for credential theft, and vulnerable plugins for remote code execution. Over 90% of CMS-based attacks specifically target WordPress installations.