IP Threat Report
72.56.191.6
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 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Burst 113/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 49/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 57/2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst 59/10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 16 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger medium hits: 8 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 19 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 36 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Probe 302→404 | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +20 |
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 72.56.191.6 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 72.56.191.0/24
- 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 72.56.191.6: 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 72.56.191.6.
Neighbors in 72.56.191.0/24
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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
72.56.191.6 has been assigned a threat score of 265/100 (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
Network traffic from 72.56.191.6, located in Moscow, Russia, operating on the network of WS Telecom Inc, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. The address has been active for 3 days in our monitoring system, producing 258 flagged requests at a rate of ~86/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. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and Request Flooding), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 111 malicious IPs originating from Russia, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. A score of 265/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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
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.
💡 TLS Fingerprinting (JA3/JA4)
TLS fingerprinting creates unique identifiers based on how clients negotiate encrypted connections. The JA3 and JA4 methods generate hashes from TLS ClientHello parameters, enabling identification of specific tools and malware regardless of IP address changes.