
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 45.90.32.134: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 3000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3000 |
| 5001 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 5001 |
| 8222 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8222 |
| 8888 | HTTP-Alt | Low | Service on port 8888 |
| 27017 | MongoDB | Critical | MongoDB — commonly found exposed without authentication |
⚠️ Network scanning reveals 1 dangerous service exposed on 45.90.32.134. Open database ports suggest possible data exfiltration risk. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-69419 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-25609 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-3765 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-3766 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-10060 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-1849 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-69418 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-1850 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-25610 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-22796 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-1847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-14847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-1848 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-15467 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-12893 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-13644 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-0190 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-69420 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-10061 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-6712 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-12657 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-25613 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-11979 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-68160 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-69421 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 34 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Consult NVD advisories for details.
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.
45.90.32.134 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:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 45.90.32.134 to malicious activity originating from St Petersburg, Russia, operating on the network of Beget LLC. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. Our sensors captured 1 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1 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 IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. Our records show 120 malicious IPs originating from Russia, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. 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.