IP Threat Report
31.134.4.168
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 5/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| 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 |
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
We have detected 76 malicious IPs from this autonomous system.
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 31.134.4.168 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 31.134.4.0/24
- 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 31.134.4.168: 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 31.134.4.168.
Neighbors in 31.134.4.0/24
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
31.134.4.168 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:
📊 Threat Analysis
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 31.134.4.168 to malicious activity originating from London, United Kingdom, operating on the network of Fast Servers (Pty) Ltd. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. The address has been active for 2 days in our monitoring system, producing 89 flagged requests at a rate of ~44.5/day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. United Kingdom currently accounts for 3,202 blocked IPs in our database, making it a major source of malicious traffic. A score of 130/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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 Kingdom
45.86.203.126 (350)45.138.12.41 (350)91.230.225.114 (350)45.138.12.46 (350)185.192.71.72 (350)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.