
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Block scanning from 38.154.117.125: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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 |
| 3128 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3128 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8800 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8800 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2013-0189 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15811 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31807 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-24606 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-2570 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-11945 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-2571 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8449 | NVD → |
| CVE-2011-3205 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12528 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-8450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-12529 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-4051 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-2569 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15049 | NVD → |
| CVE-2014-6270 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2011-4096 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15810 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-4553 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 74 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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.
38.154.117.125 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (High). The IP is rated as a high-level threat. Network administrators should implement blocking rules and monitor for any connections from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
The address 38.154.117.125 originates from Buffalo, United States, operating on the network of B2 Net Solutions Inc.. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 1 flagged requests at a rate of ~1/day. 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. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. With 180 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. The score of 70/100 indicates a confirmed malicious actor. Network-level blocking is appropriate.
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.
SQL injection remains one of the most common web attack vectors. Attackers inject malicious SQL code through input fields to extract database contents, modify data, or gain administrative access. Automated scanners test for SQLi vulnerabilities at massive scale.
Responsible disclosure balances public safety with giving vendors time to patch vulnerabilities. The security community generally supports coordinated disclosure timelines, but disagreements about appropriate timeframes and full disclosure continue to drive policy debates.