IP Threat Report
35.245.221.179
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 19 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 21 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 35.245.221.179 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
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 35.245.221.179 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 35.245.221.179.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
35.245.221.179 has been assigned a threat score of 165/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 35.245.221.179 has been traced to Washington, United States, operating on the network of Google LLC. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 1 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1 requests per day. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. Two attack patterns were identified (User-Agent Anomaly and Request Flooding), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. United States currently accounts for 142 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. At 165/100, 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
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 User-Agent Analysis Techniques
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
💡 Bulletproof Hosting Ecosystem
Bulletproof hosting providers deliberately ignore abuse complaints, creating safe havens for malicious operations. These providers often operate in jurisdictions with weak cybercrime enforcement, offering services specifically marketed to criminal organizations.