IP Threat Report
34.62.81.20
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 170/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 170/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 200/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 200/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 7 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 29 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 51 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| 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 34.62.81.20 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 34.62.81.20: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 34.62.81.20 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 34.62.81.20 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
34.62.81.20 has been assigned a threat score of 298/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
The address 34.62.81.20 originates from Brussels, Belgium, operating on the network of Google LLC. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Our sensors captured 135 malicious requests from this address across a 2-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~67.5 requests per 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. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. A score of 298/100 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
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.
💡 SSH Brute Force Defense
SSH servers face constant brute force attacks targeting common usernames and weak passwords. Key-based authentication, fail2ban, non-standard ports, and IP allowlisting dramatically reduce the attack surface. Monitoring auth logs reveals active campaigns and compromised credentials.