
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 10/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 13/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 13/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 14/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 16/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 18/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 26/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 5/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 6/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 7/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 9/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Danger medium hits: 5 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +50 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 31.56.58.172 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
IP 31.56.58.172 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Address UA spoofing from 31.56.58.172: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
31.56.58.172 has been assigned a threat score of 135/100 (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 intelligence analysis has linked 31.56.58.172 to malicious activity originating from Saint-Denis, France, operating on the network of Zkillu SAS. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. Over a period of 53 days, this IP generated 9,146 malicious requests, averaging approximately 172.6 requests per day. This IP is identified as a VPN or proxy endpoint, commonly used to mask the true origin of attack traffic and bypass geographic or reputation-based blocking. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Our records show 2,421 malicious IPs originating from France, positioning it as a major contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 135/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
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.
Bulletproof hosting providers deliberately ignore abuse complaints, creating safe havens for malicious operations. These providers often operate in jurisdictions with weak cybercrime enforcement, offering services specifically marketed to criminal organizations.