IP Threat Report
51.38.125.22
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| Burst: 6 req / 2s | 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 51.38.125.22 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 51.38.125.22: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 51.38.125.22.
Open Ports & Services
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 |
| 8081 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8081 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 2 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. Even a small number of CVEs can represent significant risk. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
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
51.38.125.22 has been assigned a threat score of 75/100 (High). At this threat level, the IP is considered high risk. Firewall rules should be updated to deny traffic from this source.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 51.38.125.22, located in Limburg an der Lahn, Germany, operating on the network of OVH SAS, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Our sensors captured 4 malicious requests from this address across a 6-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~0.7 requests per day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. The dual attack vectors of Path Enumeration combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 104 malicious IPs originating from Germany, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. The score of 75/100 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.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 Command Injection Techniques
Command injection occurs when attackers insert operating system commands through application inputs. Successful exploitation grants direct server access, enabling data theft, malware installation, and lateral movement across networks.
💡 Satellite Internet Security
Satellite internet introduces unique security challenges including high latency that affects real-time threat detection, shared bandwidth that enables traffic sniffing, and coverage areas that cross multiple jurisdictions complicating legal response.