IP Threat Report
34.51.250.3
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 108/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 200/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 40 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 241 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| POST seen | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
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 34.51.250.3 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
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 34.51.250.3: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 34.51.250.3.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 34.51.250.3 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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
34.51.250.3 has been assigned a threat score of 288/100 (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
The address 34.51.250.3 originates from Stockholm, Sweden, operating on the network of Google LLC. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. The address has been active for 5 days in our monitoring system, producing 119 flagged requests at a rate of ~23.8/day. Operating from datacenter infrastructure, this IP is typical of addresses used in organized attack operations. Cloud and VPS providers are commonly exploited as launching platforms for automated scanning. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 101 flagged addresses, Sweden represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 288/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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 Sweden
74.241.249.229 (340)91.92.42.86 (300)91.92.42.182 (300)91.92.42.63 (300)91.92.42.120 (300)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
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.
💡 HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Security Implications
Modern HTTP protocols introduce new attack surfaces including stream multiplexing abuse, header compression attacks (HPACK bombing), and rapid reset attacks. Security tools must evolve to handle these protocol-specific threats effectively.