
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 |
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 34.150.154.168: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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.
34.150.154.168 has been assigned a threat score of 75/100 (High). The IP is rated as a high-level threat. Network administrators should implement blocking rules and monitor for any connections from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 34.150.154.168, geolocated to Washington, United States, operating on the network of Google LLC, as a source of suspicious network activity. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 1 flagged requests at a rate of ~1/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 IP exhibits User-Agent manipulation, switching between different browser identities or sending empty headers. United States currently accounts for 142 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. At 75/100, 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.
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
Signature-based detection matches known attack patterns but misses novel threats. Behavioral analysis identifies anomalies in request patterns, timing, and volume, catching zero-day attacks that signatures cannot recognize.