IP Threat Report
34.97.45.15
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| DDoS / Flood | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 |
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
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 34.97.45.15 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
⚙️ Defensive Recommendations
Block 34.97.45.15 at the network perimeter. Implement defense-in-depth combining IP blocking with application-layer protections.
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
34.97.45.15 has been assigned a threat score of 295/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
📊 Threat Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 34.97.45.15, geolocated to Osaka, Japan, operating on the network of Google LLC, as a source of suspicious network activity. During its 12-day observation window, we recorded 442 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 36.8 per day on average. Our records show 106 malicious IPs originating from Japan, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 295/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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.
💡 False Positive Management
False positives erode trust in security systems and waste analyst resources. Effective management requires feedback loops, allowlisting mechanisms, contextual analysis, and regular tuning of detection rules based on operational experience.