IP Threat Report
35.92.158.141
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: Go-http-client | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 6 req / 2s | 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 35.92.158.141 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
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 35.92.158.141: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 35.92.158.141: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 35.92.158.141.
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
35.92.158.141 has been assigned a threat score of 130/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
IP address 35.92.158.141 has been traced to Portland, United States, operating on the network of Amazon.com, Inc.. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 2 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~2 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. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 130 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 130/100, 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)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 TLS Fingerprinting (JA3/JA4)
TLS fingerprinting creates unique identifiers based on how clients negotiate encrypted connections. The JA3 and JA4 methods generate hashes from TLS ClientHello parameters, enabling identification of specific tools and malware regardless of IP address changes.
💡 GraphQL Security Risks
GraphQL APIs introduce specific vulnerabilities including introspection information disclosure, query complexity attacks, batching abuse, and authorization bypass through nested queries. Depth limiting, cost analysis, and field-level authorization address these GraphQL-specific threats.