
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directory Scan | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 | |
| DDoS / Flood | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
We have detected 15115 malicious IPs from this autonomous system.
Add 35.204.23.224 to your firewall blocklist. Review logs for successful connections. Enable comprehensive logging on all public-facing services.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
35.204.23.224 has been assigned a threat score of 120/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
IP address 35.204.23.224 has been traced to Groningen, Netherlands, operating on the network of Google LLC. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Over a period of 5 days, this IP generated 135 malicious requests, averaging approximately 27 requests per day. Operating from datacenter infrastructure, this IP is typical of addresses used in organized attack operations. Cloud and VPS providers are commonly exploited as launching platforms for automated scanning. With 2,853 flagged addresses, Netherlands represents a major presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 120/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
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.
The vast IPv6 address space makes traditional sequential scanning impractical. However, attackers use DNS records, certificate transparency logs, and predictable address patterns to identify active IPv6 hosts, adapting their techniques to the expanded address space.