IP Threat Report
65.111.0.226
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 6 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 |
Observed Activity
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Timeline
Network Provider
Recommendations
Actions taken & recommended
- IP 65.111.0.226 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Other malicious IPs detected in the same /24 subnet — consider blocking 65.111.0.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 65.111.0.226 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Neighbors in 65.111.0.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Open Ports & Services
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 179 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 179 |
| 3129 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 3129 |
| 8081 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8081 |
Data source: Shodan InternetDB. Scanned independently of abuse.mom.
Blacklist Status (DNSBL)
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.
Threat Analysis
65.111.0.226 has been assigned a threat score of 105/100 (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:
📊 Threat Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 65.111.0.226, geolocated to Ashburn, United States, operating on the network of 3xK Tech GmbH, as a source of suspicious network activity. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 1 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 1 per day on average. This residential IP is likely a compromised consumer device. Home routers and IoT equipment with default credentials are prime targets for botnet operators. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. United States currently accounts for 157 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.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Directory Traversal Attacks
Path traversal attacks attempt to access files outside the intended directory by manipulating file path references. Attackers use sequences like ../ to reach sensitive system files such as /etc/passwd or application configuration files.
💡 Machine Learning in Threat Detection
Machine learning models analyze vast amounts of network traffic to identify attack patterns invisible to rule-based systems. Supervised models classify known attack types while unsupervised models detect anomalies that may indicate novel threats.