IP Threat Report
35.198.11.196
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst 10/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 11/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 13/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 33/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 41/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 46/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 40 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 80 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 241 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 482 | 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 35.198.11.196 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 35.198.11.196.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 35.198.11.196 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
35.198.11.196 has been assigned a threat score of 263/100 (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
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 35.198.11.196 to malicious activity originating from Sao Paulo, Brazil, operating on the network of Google LLC. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. Over a period of 2 days, this IP generated 105 malicious requests, averaging approximately 52.5 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. The dual attack vectors of Request Flooding combined with User-Agent Anomaly indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 2,171 malicious IPs originating from Brazil, positioning it as a major contributor to global threat activity. At 263/100, 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
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.
💡 Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Attacks
XSS attacks inject malicious scripts into web pages viewed by other users. Reflected XSS uses crafted URLs, while stored XSS persists in databases. Both types can steal session cookies, redirect users, or deface websites.