IP Threat Report
45.92.229.190
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 |
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 45.92.229.190 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 45.92.229.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 45.92.229.190: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 45.92.229.190 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Neighbors in 45.92.229.0/24
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
45.92.229.190 has been assigned a threat score of 100/100 (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
IP address 45.92.229.190 has been traced to New York, United States, operating on the network of F.N.S. HOLDINGS LIMITED. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Over a period of 4 days, this IP generated 4 malicious requests, averaging approximately 1 requests per day. This IP is identified as a VPN or proxy endpoint, commonly used to mask the true origin of attack traffic and bypass geographic or reputation-based blocking. The dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Path Enumeration indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. With 147 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. A score of 100/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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 United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)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.