IP Threat Report
4.205.120.59
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 45 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 166 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Burst: 22 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 77 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger strong hits: 72 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 253 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 23 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 75 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 172 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 72 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 150 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 344 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 43 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 145 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 74 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 50 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 76 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 65 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 58 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 203 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 70 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 116 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 305 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 24 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 81 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 87 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 204 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 67 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 71 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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 4.205.120.59 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 4.205.120.59 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 4.205.120.59: 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 4.205.120.59.
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
4.205.120.59 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (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 4.205.120.59 has been traced to Toronto, Canada, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 16 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~16 requests per 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. The combination of 3 distinct attack vectors indicates a sophisticated, multi-pronged threat actor deploying automated tools that probe multiple attack surfaces simultaneously. Canada currently accounts for 101 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. At 280/100, 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
Security Intelligence
💡 HTTP Header Analysis for Threat Detection
Examining HTTP headers beyond User-Agent reveals attack tools and automated scripts. Missing standard headers, unusual ordering, non-standard values, and inconsistencies with claimed client identity all serve as reliable detection signals.
💡 Web Application Firewall Strategies
WAFs inspect HTTP traffic to block common attacks but require careful tuning. Overly aggressive rules cause false positives while permissive configurations miss attacks. Modern WAFs combine signature matching with behavioral analysis and machine learning.