
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA changed for same IP | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 126 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Burst: 30 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 110 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 163 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 216 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 109 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 228 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 335 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Danger strong hits: 442 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 835 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 31 req / 2s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Burst: 111 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 420 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 460 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +60 | |
| Burst: 112 req / 10s | Abnormally fast request rate — automated scanning | +35 | |
| Danger strong hits: 227 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 225 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 | |
| Danger strong hits: 226 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +100 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
IP 92.62.120.86 shows suspicious UA behavior. Block empty User-Agent requests. Implement JavaScript-based bot detection for sensitive endpoints.
Implement limit_req_zone in nginx. Deploy CDN with DDoS protection. Configure SYN cookies and connection tracking to throttle 92.62.120.86.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
Network reconnaissance data from Shodan. Open ports may indicate running services, misconfigurations, or potential attack surfaces.
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1443 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 1443 |
| 4000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 4000 |
| 8443 | HTTPS-Alt | Low | Service on port 8443 |
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.
92.62.120.86 has been assigned a threat score of 255/100 (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:
IP address 92.62.120.86 has been traced to Yerevan, AM, operating on the network of Cyberzone S.A.. Our threat detection systems have flagged this address based on observed malicious behavior patterns. Our sensors captured 17 malicious requests from this address across a 1-day span, reflecting a sustained attack cadence of ~17 requests per day. This is a residential IP address, suggesting a compromised home device such as a router, smart appliance, or infected workstation participating in a botnet. Two attack patterns were identified (User-Agent Anomaly and Request Flooding), suggesting a semi-automated campaign that targets multiple vulnerabilities. With a threat score of 255/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
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.
Analyzing User-Agent strings reveals automated tools masquerading as legitimate browsers. Inconsistencies between claimed browser capabilities and actual behavior, impossible version combinations, and known scanner signatures help identify malicious clients.
Blocking traffic from specific countries reduces attack surface but impacts legitimate international users. Effective geo-based policies use tiered approaches — blocking, rate limiting, or requiring additional verification based on risk assessment.