IP Threat Report
34.168.16.51
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 18 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 16 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 20 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 34.168.16.51 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 34.168.16.51.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2007-2768 | NVD → |
| CVE-2008-3844 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51767 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-26465 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-26466 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-32728 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 6 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. Multiple vulnerabilities suggest gaps in patch management. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
34.168.16.51 has been assigned a threat score of 155/100 (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:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 34.168.16.51, located in The Dalles, United States, operating on the network of Google LLC, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 1 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1 per day on average. 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. Rate-based attacks from this IP aim to overwhelm server resources through high-volume request flooding. With 142 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 155/100 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 States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 File Upload Vulnerabilities
Insecure file upload functionality allows attackers to upload web shells, malware, or scripts that execute on the server. Proper validation must check file content, not just extensions, and uploaded files should be stored outside the web root.
💡 Network Segmentation Benefits
Proper network segmentation limits the blast radius of breaches. Even if attackers compromise one segment, properly configured network boundaries prevent lateral movement to critical systems, databases, and administrative interfaces.