
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 22/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 78/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 10 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 11 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 12 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 13 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 14 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 15 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 16 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 5 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 6 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 7 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 71 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 8 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 9 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 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.
Block scanning from 34.121.25.34: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
IP 34.121.25.34 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Address UA spoofing from 34.121.25.34: 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.
34.121.25.34 has been assigned a threat score of 290/100 (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:
Network traffic from 34.121.25.34, located in Council Bluffs, United States, operating on the network of Google LLC, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. The address has been active for 36 days in our monitoring system, producing 838 flagged requests at a rate of ~23.3/day. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. United States currently accounts for 130 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. A score of 290/100 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.
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.
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.