
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 11/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 5/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 6/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 11 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 12 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 5 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 6 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Form spam: no_js_check | Spam/malware keywords in request content | +0 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Block scanning from 64.31.20.22: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 64.31.20.22.
Enable CAPTCHA on all public forms. Add honeypot fields. Rate-limit submissions to 3 per minute per IP. Deploy Akismet or CleanTalk.
Address UA spoofing from 64.31.20.22: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
64.31.20.22 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
64.31.20.22 is registered in Washington, United States, operating on the network of Limestone Networks, Inc.. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. The address has been active for 80 days in our monitoring system, producing 11,579 flagged requests at a rate of ~144.7/day. This residential IP is likely a compromised consumer device. Home routers and IoT equipment with default credentials are prime targets for botnet operators. The diversity of 3 separate attack methods suggests a comprehensive attack toolkit — likely an automated scanner that tests for vulnerabilities across multiple categories. United States currently accounts for 121 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. With a threat score of 105/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
This IP is classified as residential, suggesting it may belong to a compromised home device, IoT botnet member, or an infected personal computer. Residential IPs involved in attacks often indicate malware infection without the owner's knowledge.
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.
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.