
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 10 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 23.229.116.110 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| 21242 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 21242 |
| 52951 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 52951 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-37894 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-25097 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14058 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12520 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-32748 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18677 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1000027 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18676 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12523 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12522 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12529 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-10002 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-18860 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12524 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 59 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Consult NVD advisories for details.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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.
23.229.116.110 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
IP address 23.229.116.110 has been traced to Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of B2 Net Solutions Inc.. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 1 malicious requests, averaging approximately 1 requests per 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. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. Our records show 200 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 105/100 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.
Modern attacks increasingly target APIs rather than traditional web interfaces. Attackers enumerate endpoints, test for broken authentication, and exploit excessive data exposure. API attacks are harder to detect as they mimic legitimate programmatic access patterns.
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.