
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 36 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 756 | 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: 46 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 132 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 24 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 378 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 24 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 87 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 18 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 252 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 86 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 12 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 10 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 27 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 618 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 88 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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 4.205.211.88: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Block scanning from 4.205.211.88: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
IP 4.205.211.88 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
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.
4.205.211.88 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 intelligence analysis has linked 4.205.211.88 to malicious activity originating from Toronto, Canada, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 10 flagged requests at a rate of ~10/day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 101 flagged addresses, Canada represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 280/100 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.
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
Analyzing attack patterns at the AS (Autonomous System) level reveals which networks harbor the most malicious activity. Some ASes have abuse rates orders of magnitude higher than average, indicating lax enforcement of acceptable use policies.