
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Danger medium hits: 7 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 |
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 67.226.219.226: rate-limit 404 responses per IP, deploy a honeypot 404 page, ensure no backup files are web-accessible.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4444 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 4444 |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2021-28116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41317 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49288 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28651 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-32748 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49286 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-59362 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-5824 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31808 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-45802 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-31806 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-49285 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-41318 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-54574 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-33526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25617 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46847 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46724 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-33620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-28652 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-46784 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-46846 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-50269 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-62168 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-25111 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 30 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 This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software.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.
67.226.219.226 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:
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 67.226.219.226 to malicious activity originating from Los Angeles, United States, operating on the network of Sprious LLC. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. The address has been active for 8 days in our monitoring system, producing 299 flagged requests at a rate of ~37.4/day. Operating from a residential network, this IP may represent a compromised home gateway or IoT device that has been drafted into a larger attack infrastructure. Active path scanning has been detected — this IP probes for hundreds of common file and directory names. Our records show 200 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. At 105/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
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.
XXE vulnerabilities in XML parsers allow attackers to read local files, perform SSRF, and execute denial of service attacks. Many legacy applications and APIs remain vulnerable to XXE due to insecure default XML parser configurations.
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.