
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: 18 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 12 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 13 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 15 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Imported from old blocklist | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 51.83.98.78 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
IP 51.83.98.78 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
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 |
| 53 | DNS | Low | DNS server — potential for DNS amplification attacks |
| 123 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 123 |
| 992 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 992 |
| 1194 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1194 |
| 1723 | PPTP | Low | Service on port 1723 |
| 2086 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2086 |
| 4443 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 4443 |
| 5555 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 5555 |
| 8443 | HTTPS-Alt | Low | Service on port 8443 |
| 8880 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8880 |
| 10000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 10000 |
| 10001 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 10001 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2025-23419 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-44487 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-3618 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-23017 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 4 vulnerability entries on this host. Multiple vulnerabilities suggest gaps in patch management. 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.
51.83.98.78 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:
IP address 51.83.98.78 has been traced to Roubaix, France, operating on the network of OVH SAS. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 3 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~3 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 User-Agent Anomaly combined with Request Flooding indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 124 malicious IPs originating from France, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 255/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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.
Examining HTTP headers beyond User-Agent reveals attack tools and automated scripts. Missing standard headers, unusual ordering, non-standard values, and inconsistencies with claimed client identity all serve as reliable detection signals.
SSRF attacks trick servers into making requests to internal resources that should not be publicly accessible. This can expose cloud metadata endpoints, internal APIs, and private network services, potentially leading to full infrastructure compromise.