
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: Go-http-client | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 4 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
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 65.109.16.8: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 1521 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1521 |
| 3389 | RDP | High | Remote Desktop Protocol — primary target for ransomware attacks |
⚠️ 1 high-risk port detected on 65.109.16.8. Exposed RDP (3389) is the #1 entry point for ransomware attacks. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2023-0464 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-40438 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-2765 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-13938 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-4450 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-65082 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-35452 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-49812 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0942 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-69419 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-68160 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-3766 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-36160 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-4365 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-43394 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-38477 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-3711 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-2068 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-43204 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-7069 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-23048 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-23840 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-24795 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0941 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-0466 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 118 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
65.109.16.8 has been assigned a threat score of 205/100 (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:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 65.109.16.8 to malicious activity originating from Helsinki, Finland, operating on the network of Hetzner Online GmbH. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. The address has been active for 1 days in our monitoring system, producing 1 flagged requests at a rate of ~1/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. The IP exhibits User-Agent manipulation, switching between different browser identities or sending empty headers. With 36 flagged addresses, Finland represents a notable presence in our threat database. With a threat score of 205/100, 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.
Threat scoring combines multiple signals — request patterns, known signatures, IP reputation, geographic risk, and behavioral analysis — into a single actionable metric. Weighted scoring models allow tuning sensitivity to balance security with usability.