
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| 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.
Address UA spoofing from 31.58.51.55: 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.
31.58.51.55 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (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:
IP address 31.58.51.55 has been traced to Chojnice, Poland, operating on the network of Wojciech Czapkowicz. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. The address has been active for 14 days in our monitoring system, producing 135 flagged requests at a rate of ~9.6/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 IP exhibits User-Agent manipulation, switching between different browser identities or sending empty headers. At 85/100, this IP warrants immediate defensive action.
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.
Brute force attacks systematically try username and password combinations to gain unauthorized access. Modern attacks leverage credential databases from previous breaches, testing millions of combinations using distributed botnets across multiple IP addresses.
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.