IP Threat Report
91.230.225.211
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: Go-http-client | Known bot/crawler User-Agent detected | +40 | |
| Danger strong hits: 3 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 3 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +30 | |
| Foreign referer seen | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| UA suspicious (short/empty) | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +15 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 |
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 91.230.225.211 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 91.230.225.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 91.230.225.211 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 91.230.225.211 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
Neighbors in 91.230.225.0/24
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
91.230.225.211 has been assigned a threat score of 155/100 (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:
📊 Threat Analysis
Network traffic from 91.230.225.211, located in London, United Kingdom, operating on the network of F.N.S. HOLDINGS LIMITED, has been classified as malicious by our automated threat scoring engine. Over a period of 21 days, this IP generated 3 malicious requests, averaging approximately 0.1 requests per day. The address is classified as residential, meaning it likely belongs to an end-user ISP connection. Malicious activity from residential IPs typically indicates device compromise or botnet membership. The dual attack vectors of User-Agent Anomaly combined with Path Enumeration indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 143 malicious IPs originating from United Kingdom, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. At 155/100, 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.
Related Threats
🇬🇧 Top threats from United Kingdom
104.28.208.60 (340)104.28.240.60 (340)91.230.225.3 (305)45.86.203.224 (305)45.86.203.35 (305)View all →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.
💡 Container Security Challenges
Containerized applications face unique security challenges including vulnerable base images, excessive privileges, shared kernel attacks, and insecure orchestration configurations. Runtime security monitoring and immutable container policies mitigate these risks.