IP Threat Report
23.80.6.5
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Burst: 14 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 14 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 23.80.6.5 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
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 23.80.6.5.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 88 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 88 |
| 123 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 123 |
| 593 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 593 |
| 3268 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3268 |
| 3389 | RDP | High | Remote Desktop Protocol — primary target for ransomware attacks |
| 5985 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 5985 |
⚠️ 1 high-risk port detected on 23.80.6.5. Exposed RDP (3389) is the #1 entry point for ransomware attacks. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
23.80.6.5 has been assigned a threat score of 130/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 23.80.6.5, geolocated to Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of Leaseweb USA, Inc., as a source of suspicious network activity. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 1 flagged requests at a rate of ~1/day. Classified as a hosting IP, this address likely runs on a rented server or cloud instance. Attackers prefer datacenter IPs for their high bandwidth and disposable nature. Rate-based attacks from this IP aim to overwhelm server resources through high-volume request flooding. United States currently accounts for 152 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 130/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
This IP belongs to a hosting or data center provider. Malicious traffic from hosting infrastructure often originates from compromised VPS instances, rented servers used for scanning campaigns, or abused free-tier cloud accounts. Hosting providers typically respond to abuse reports within 24-72 hours.
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
💡 Credential Stuffing at Scale
Credential stuffing uses stolen username-password pairs from data breaches to attempt logins across many websites. Since users frequently reuse passwords, these automated attacks achieve success rates of 0.1-2%, which translates to thousands of compromised accounts from millions of attempts.
💡 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.