IP Threat Report
23.94.155.35
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: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 |
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 23.94.155.35 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 23.94.155.0/24
- 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 23.94.155.35 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 23.94.155.35 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Neighbors in 23.94.155.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
23.94.155.35 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 23.94.155.35, geolocated to Miami, United States, operating on the network of Maxihost LTDA, as a source of suspicious network activity. Over a period of 36 days, this IP generated 34 malicious requests, averaging approximately 0.9 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. United States currently accounts for 224 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 100/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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
🇺🇸 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
💡 WordPress-Specific Attack Vectors
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.
💡 GDPR and Threat Intelligence
Processing IP addresses for security purposes under GDPR requires balancing legitimate interest in network protection with data minimization principles. Threat intelligence platforms must implement appropriate retention policies and provide mechanisms for data subject rights.