IP Threat Report
65.21.16.207
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst 5/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 5 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 10 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| Danger medium hits: 5 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +50 | |
| 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 | |
| Imported from old blocklist | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
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 65.21.16.207 is blocked at application level (HTTP 403)
- Consider blocking at firewall level (iptables/CSF) to reduce server load
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Path Enumeration Protection
Block scanning from 65.21.16.207: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 65.21.16.207.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 65.21.16.207 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
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
65.21.16.207 has been assigned a threat score of 165/100 (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 Analysis
Our monitoring infrastructure has identified 65.21.16.207, geolocated to Helsinki, Finland, operating on the network of Hetzner Online GmbH, as a source of suspicious network activity. Our sensors captured 406 malicious requests from this address across a 101-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~4 requests per day. Operating from datacenter infrastructure, this IP is typical of addresses used in organized attack operations. Cloud and VPS providers are commonly exploited as launching platforms for automated scanning. With 3 different attack patterns detected, this IP exhibits behavior characteristic of advanced automated scanning frameworks. Our records show 101 malicious IPs originating from Finland, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 165/100, 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.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
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.
💡 Web Application Firewall Strategies
WAFs inspect HTTP traffic to block common attacks but require careful tuning. Overly aggressive rules cause false positives while permissive configurations miss attacks. Modern WAFs combine signature matching with behavioral analysis and machine learning.