
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 31 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 21 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 31 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| Danger strong hits: 33 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 27 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 33 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 38 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Burst: 34 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 38 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 43 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 25 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 43 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 26 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 23 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 26 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 39 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 36 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 39 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 60 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 60 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 60 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 40 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Burst: 40 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 40 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 91.107.251.15 is generating excessive traffic. Limit connections per source IP. Enable geographic blocking if traffic from this region is unexpected.
Block scanning from 91.107.251.15: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 8000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8000 |
| 8010 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8010 |
| 8100 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8100 |
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2022-22721 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-38474 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-66200 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-4365 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-38476 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-38472 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-49812 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-26377 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-12084 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-55753 | NVD → |
| CVE-2009-2940 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-2765 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-23943 | NVD → |
| CVE-2012-4360 | NVD → |
| CVE-2006-20001 | NVD → |
| CVE-2013-0942 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-28330 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-9287 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-14180 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-43394 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-3205 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-27316 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-13836 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-38473 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-58098 | NVD → |
🔴 Security scanning identified 74 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.
91.107.251.15 has been assigned a threat score of 195/100 (Critical). A score this high marks a critical threat actor. This address has demonstrated persistent, aggressive malicious behavior across multiple detection vectors.
The following attack categories were identified:
IP address 91.107.251.15 has been traced to Frankfurt Am Main, Germany, operating on the network of Hetzner Online AG. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. The address has been active for 3 days in our monitoring system, producing 12 flagged requests at a rate of ~4/day. This address belongs to a datacenter or cloud hosting provider. Hosting IPs are frequently leveraged by threat actors who rent cheap VPS instances specifically for conducting attacks. The dual attack vectors of Request Flooding combined with Path Enumeration indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 63 malicious IPs originating from Germany, positioning it as a notable contributor to global threat activity. A score of 195/100 places this address in the top tier of severity. Block and investigate any historical connections.
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.
RCE vulnerabilities allow attackers to execute arbitrary code on target servers. These critical flaws often arise from deserialization bugs, template injection, or file upload vulnerabilities, and represent the highest severity class of web application weaknesses.
Email authentication protocols work together to prevent spoofing. SPF validates sending servers, DKIM provides cryptographic message signing, and DMARC defines enforcement policies. Full implementation significantly reduces phishing effectiveness.