IP Threat Report
35.252.57.136
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst 22/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 23/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 80/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 81/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 82/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 83/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 84/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 40 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 241 | 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 35.252.57.136 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 35.252.57.0/24
- 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 35.252.57.136.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 35.252.57.136 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Neighbors in 35.252.57.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
35.252.57.136 has been assigned a threat score of 263/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 35.252.57.136, located in Dammam, SA, operating on the network of Google LLC, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Our sensors captured 3,004 malicious requests from this address across a 2-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1502 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 (Request Flooding and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 230 malicious IPs originating from SA, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 263/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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.
💡 False Positive Management
False positives erode trust in security systems and waste analyst resources. Effective management requires feedback loops, allowlisting mechanisms, contextual analysis, and regular tuning of detection rules based on operational experience.