
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: python | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 |
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 52.12.74.35: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Block scanning from 52.12.74.35: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 190 |
| 1801 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1801 |
| 5678 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 5678 |
| 8556 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8556 |
| 9025 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 9025 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2022-30556 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-3566 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-22720 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1283 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-17567 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-7069 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-13837 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-23943 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-22719 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-1934 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-1301 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-7064 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-7060 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-66200 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0942 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-9022 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-11045 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-14851 | NVD → |
| CVE-2017-8923 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-4723 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-31122 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-37436 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-38474 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-44224 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-3526 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 164 vulnerability entries on this host. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. 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.
52.12.74.35 has been assigned a threat score of 125/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
IP address 52.12.74.35 has been traced to Portland, United States, operating on the network of Amazon.com, Inc.. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 2 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~2 requests per day. The IP is classified as hosting/datacenter infrastructure, commonly associated with rented servers used for automated attack campaigns, botnet command-and-control, or vulnerability scanning at scale. Two attack patterns were identified (User-Agent Anomaly and Path Enumeration), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 130 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 125/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
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.
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.