IP Threat Report
45.91.23.159
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 378 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 970 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 23 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 82 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 396 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 786 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 83 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 45.91.23.159 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 45.91.23.0/24
- 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 45.91.23.159 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🌊 Traffic Flood Defense
IP 45.91.23.159 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Neighbors in 45.91.23.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
45.91.23.159 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (Critical). With this rating, the IP falls into the critical severity bracket — among the most dangerous addresses in our monitoring database.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 45.91.23.159, located in Montreal, Canada, operating on the network of Datacamp Limited, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 2 flagged requests at a rate of ~2/day. Classified as a VPN or proxy server, this IP serves as an anonymization layer. While VPNs have legitimate uses, this address has been observed routing clearly malicious traffic. 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. With a threat score of 255/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
Related Threats
🇨🇦 Top threats from Canada
45.91.23.64 (305)45.91.23.87 (270)45.91.23.152 (255)45.91.23.123 (255)45.91.23.110 (255)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 TLS Fingerprinting (JA3/JA4)
TLS fingerprinting creates unique identifiers based on how clients negotiate encrypted connections. The JA3 and JA4 methods generate hashes from TLS ClientHello parameters, enabling identification of specific tools and malware regardless of IP address changes.
💡 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.