IP Threat Report
35.230.61.193
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 160/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 64/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 12 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 337 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| 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 35.230.61.193 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
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 35.230.61.193 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 35.230.61.193 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 35.230.61.193: 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
35.230.61.193 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (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
35.230.61.193 is registered in The Dalles, United States, operating on the network of Google LLC. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. During its 6-day observation window, we recorded 139 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 23.2 per day on average. Classified as a hosting IP, this address likely runs on a rented server or cloud instance. Attackers prefer datacenter IPs for their high bandwidth and disposable nature. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. With 128 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 280/100, 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.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.214.122 (350)216.73.160.52 (350)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →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.
💡 HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Security Implications
Modern HTTP protocols introduce new attack surfaces including stream multiplexing abuse, header compression attacks (HPACK bombing), and rapid reset attacks. Security tools must evolve to handle these protocol-specific threats effectively.