
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 31/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 9/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 40 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger strong hits: 22 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 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 bot: Go-http-client | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| UA suspicious | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | 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.
Block scanning from 64.64.116.12: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
IP 64.64.116.12 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
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 64.64.116.12: 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.
64.64.116.12 has been assigned a threat score of 305/100 (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:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 64.64.116.12 to malicious activity originating from Chicago, United States, operating on the network of LogicWeb Inc. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. The address has been active for 46 days in our monitoring system, producing 202 flagged requests at a rate of ~4.4/day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. With 222 flagged addresses, United States represents a significant presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 305/100, 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.
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.