
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 19/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 20/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 69/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 71/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 72/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 73/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 128 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 192 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 260 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger strong hits: 32 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 42 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
We have detected 1852 malicious IPs from this autonomous system.
IP 52.189.96.225 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
IP 52.189.96.225 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
IP 52.189.96.225 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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.
52.189.96.225 has been assigned a threat score of 280/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
IP address 52.189.96.225 has been traced to Des Moines, United States, operating on the network of Microsoft Corporation. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. During its 2-day observation window, we recorded 770 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 385 per day on average. Classified as a hosting IP, this address likely runs on a rented server or cloud instance. Attackers prefer datacenter IPs for their high bandwidth and disposable nature. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. With 36,213 flagged addresses, United States represents a major presence in our threat database. A score of 280/100 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.
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
Edge computing pushes processing closer to users but expands the attack surface. Edge nodes often run in less secure environments than centralized data centers, creating new opportunities for physical access attacks and supply chain compromises.