IP Threat Report
43.240.55.11
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| 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 43.240.55.11 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 43.240.55.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 43.240.55.11 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Neighbors in 43.240.55.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 53 | DNS | Low | DNS server — potential for DNS amplification attacks |
| 2000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2000 |
| 8291 | MikroTik | High | MikroTik Winbox — router management, targeted by VPNFilter malware |
⚠️ 1 high-risk port detected on 43.240.55.11. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
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
43.240.55.11 has been assigned a threat score of 60/100 (High). This score indicates high threat severity. The IP has shown clear patterns of malicious behavior that warrant immediate defensive measures.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 43.240.55.11, located in Caloocan, Philippines, operating on the network of BF DOMINGO ENTERPRISES, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Over a period of 1 days, this IP generated 1 malicious requests, averaging approximately 1 requests per day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. Our records show 102 malicious IPs originating from Philippines, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. The score of 60/100 warrants active monitoring and rate-limiting. Full blocking is advisable for sensitive systems.
This IP is classified as residential, suggesting it may belong to a compromised home device, IoT botnet member, or an infected personal computer. Residential IPs involved in attacks often indicate malware infection without the owner's knowledge.
Related Threats
🇵🇭 Top threats from Philippines
194.61.41.46 (255)103.250.62.24 (213)180.191.168.156 (208)136.158.57.53 (208)136.158.82.180 (208)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Remote Code Execution (RCE)
RCE vulnerabilities allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on target servers. These critical flaws often arise from deserialization bugs, template injection, or file upload vulnerabilities, and represent the highest severity class of web application weaknesses.
💡 Responsible Disclosure Ethics
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.