IP Threat Report
35.200.86.146
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 32/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 35/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 38/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 39/10s | 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 35.200.86.146 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
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 35.200.86.146 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 35.200.86.146: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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
35.200.86.146 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
IP address 35.200.86.146 has been traced to Tokyo, Japan, operating on the network of Google LLC. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. During its 3-day observation window, we recorded 114 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 38 per day on average. 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. Japan currently accounts for 1,341 blocked IPs in our database, making it a major source of malicious traffic. 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.
💡 Subnet-Level vs IP-Level Blocking
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.