IP Threat Report
89.251.0.200
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 57 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Burst: 19 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 67 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 349 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 822 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 18 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 66 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
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 89.251.0.200 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 89.251.0.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 89.251.0.200: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
🌊 Flood / DDoS Mitigation
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 89.251.0.200.
Neighbors in 89.251.0.0/24
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
89.251.0.200 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (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
The address 89.251.0.200 originates from Toronto, Canada, operating on the network of Orion Network Limited. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 2 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 2 per day on average. The address operates as a VPN/proxy exit node. Attackers route traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their real location and evade IP-based security controls. Two attack patterns were identified (User-Agent Anomaly and Request Flooding), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. Our records show 176 malicious IPs originating from Canada, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. At 255/100, this is an extremely high-risk address. All traffic should be considered hostile.
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
Related Threats
Security Intelligence
💡 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.
💡 GraphQL Security Risks
GraphQL APIs introduce specific vulnerabilities including introspection information disclosure, query complexity attacks, batching abuse, and authorization bypass through nested queries. Depth limiting, cost analysis, and field-level authorization address these GraphQL-specific threats.