
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 4 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +40 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| 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.
Block scanning from 85.202.160.65: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | FTP | Medium | File Transfer Protocol — often targeted for anonymous login attacks |
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 25 | SMTP | Medium | SMTP mail server — can be abused for spam relay |
| 53 | DNS | Low | DNS server — potential for DNS amplification attacks |
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 110 | POP3 | Low | Service on port 110 |
| 465 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 465 |
| 587 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 587 |
| 993 | IMAPS | Low | Service on port 993 |
| 995 | POP3S | Low | Service on port 995 |
| 2222 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 2222 |
| 10000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 10000 |
| 20000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 20000 |
⚠️ Network scanning reveals 1 dangerous service exposed on 85.202.160.65. These services should not be publicly accessible without strict firewall rules.
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2011-1176 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-2299 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-3526 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0941 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-4365 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0942 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-4360 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-2765 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-0796 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-4723 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-4001 | NVD → |
| CVE-2011-2688 | NVD → |
🔴 This host has 12 known CVEs associated with its exposed services. This volume strongly suggests severely outdated software. Review each CVE in the NVD database.
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.
85.202.160.65 has been assigned a threat score of 65/100 (High). This classifies it as a high-severity threat. Proactive blocking is recommended for sensitive infrastructure.
The following attack categories were identified:
The address 85.202.160.65 originates from Frankfurt am Main, Germany, operating on the network of Ambyre LLC. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Our sensors captured 1 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~1 requests per 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. The IP exhibits directory enumeration behavior, systematically requesting non-existent paths to discover hidden files and misconfigured resources. With 103 flagged addresses, Germany represents a significant presence in our threat database. At 65/100, this IP presents a meaningful threat. Implement rate limiting with escalation to blocking.
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.
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.
Modern HTTP protocols introduce new attack surfaces including stream multiplexing abuse, header compression attacks (HPACK bombing), and rapid reset attacks. Security tools must evolve to handle these protocol-specific threats effectively.