
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| UA bot: python | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Address UA spoofing from 36.150.136.142: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
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.
36.150.136.142 has been assigned a threat score of 90/100 (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:
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 36.150.136.142, geolocated to Nanjing, China, operating on the network of China Mobile Communications Corporation, as a source of suspicious network activity. During its 3-day observation window, we recorded 230 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 76.7 per day on average. This is a mobile network IP. While mobile addresses are typically shared via CGNAT, persistent malicious activity from this specific address suggests automated abuse. The IP exhibits User-Agent manipulation, switching between different browser identities or sending empty headers. China currently accounts for 106 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. A score of 90/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
SSRF attacks trick servers into making requests to internal resources that should not be publicly accessible. This can expose cloud metadata endpoints, internal APIs, and private network services, potentially leading to full infrastructure compromise.
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.