
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 15 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 24 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 21 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 24 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 112 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 26 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 23 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 84 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 378 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 970 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 24 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 85 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 202 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 243 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 22 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 80 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 83 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 234 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 87 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 191 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 496 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 |
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 45.91.23.115: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
IP 45.91.23.115 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
45.91.23.115 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (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:
The address 45.91.23.115 originates from Montreal, Canada, operating on the network of Datacamp Limited. 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 6 flagged requests at a rate of ~6/day. The address operates as a VPN/proxy exit node. Attackers route traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their real location and evade IP-based security controls. The dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 53 flagged addresses, Canada represents a notable presence in our threat database. At 255/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
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.
Email authentication protocols work together to prevent spoofing. SPF validates sending servers, DKIM provides cryptographic message signing, and DMARC defines enforcement policies. Full implementation significantly reduces phishing effectiveness.