IP Threat Report
34.87.140.129
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 6 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 34.87.140.129 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 34.87.140.129: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 3389 | RDP | High | Remote Desktop Protocol — primary target for ransomware attacks |
⚠️ Network scanning reveals 1 dangerous service exposed on 34.87.140.129. Exposed RDP (3389) is the #1 entry point for ransomware attacks. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
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
34.87.140.129 has been assigned a threat score of 205/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
34.87.140.129 is registered in Singapore, Singapore, operating on the network of Google LLC. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. Our sensors captured 1 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1 requests per day. 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. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. With 103 flagged addresses, Singapore represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 205/100, 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 Singapore
85.203.23.12 (340)85.203.23.31 (330)84.17.39.195 (325)192.166.246.30 (325)85.203.21.101 (320)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Remote Code Execution (RCE)
RCE vulnerabilities allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on target servers. These critical flaws often arise from deserialization bugs, template injection, or file upload vulnerabilities, and represent the highest severity class of web application weaknesses.
💡 Behavioral Analysis vs Signature Detection
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.