IP Threat Report
92.119.36.98
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio >= 60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +25 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| POST seen | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +8 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| spam:no_js_check | Spam/malware keywords in request content | +0 |
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 92.119.36.98 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 92.119.36.0/24
- Report abuse to the network provider via their abuse contact
- Ensure sensitive files (.env, .git, backups) are not accessible from the web
🔎 Directory Scan Defense
IP 92.119.36.98 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🤖 User-Agent Anomaly Defense
IP 92.119.36.98 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
📧 Content Abuse Prevention
IP 92.119.36.98 is flooding forms with spam. Implement time-based tokens and block IPs submitting more than 5 forms per hour.
Neighbors in 92.119.36.0/24
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
92.119.36.98 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (Critical). This is a critical-level threat. Systems administrators should treat this IP as hostile and block all inbound connections without exception.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
Threat intelligence analysis has linked 92.119.36.98 to malicious activity originating from Phoenix, United States, operating on the network of Clouvider Limited. The address has been under observation since its initial detection. During its 1-day observation window, we recorded 107 hostile requests from this IP — roughly 107 per day on average. Operating from datacenter infrastructure, this IP is typical of addresses used in organized attack operations. Cloud and VPS providers are commonly exploited as launching platforms for automated scanning. Two attack patterns were identified (Path Enumeration and User-Agent Anomaly), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. United States currently accounts for 188 blocked IPs in our database, making it a significant source of malicious traffic. The score of 85/100 indicates a confirmed malicious actor. Network-level blocking is appropriate.
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.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.214.122 (350)103.215.74.213 (340)103.168.66.237 (340)34.187.158.4 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 HTTP Header Analysis for Threat Detection
Examining HTTP headers beyond User-Agent reveals attack tools and automated scripts. Missing standard headers, unusual ordering, non-standard values, and inconsistencies with claimed client identity all serve as reliable detection signals.
💡 Automated Incident Response
Automated response systems can block threats in milliseconds, far faster than human analysts. However, automation requires careful safeguards — rate limits on blocking actions, automatic expiration, and human review queues prevent automated systems from causing self-inflicted outages.