IP Threat Report
3.91.241.202
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 | |
| Burst 25/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 26/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 48/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 92/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 94/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 95/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 35 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 40 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 43 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 470 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 480 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| POST seen | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 |
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 3.91.241.202 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
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 3.91.241.202: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 3.91.241.202.
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
3.91.241.202 has been assigned a threat score of 253/100 (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:
📊 Threat Analysis
The address 3.91.241.202 originates from Ashburn, United States, operating on the network of Amazon Technologies Inc.. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. The address has been active for 3 days in our monitoring system, producing 563 flagged requests at a rate of ~187.7/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. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 201 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 253/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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)104.28.214.122 (350)216.73.160.52 (350)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
💡 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.