
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directory Scan | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 | |
| DDoS / Flood | Behavioral anomaly detected by automated analysis | +0 |
Reconstructed HTTP requests from server access logs. Target domains redacted for security.
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
Add 94.158.190.9 to your firewall blocklist. Review logs for successful connections. Enable comprehensive logging on all public-facing services.
Other blocked IPs from the same /24 subnet — indicates systematic abuse from this network range.
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.
94.158.190.9 has been assigned a threat score of 130/100 (Critical). This places it in the critical threat category. Immediate blocking is strongly advised across all network perimeters.
94.158.190.9 is registered in Rzhavki, Russia, operating on the network of Biterika Group LLC. This IP first appeared in our threat feeds after triggering multiple behavioral detection signatures. The address has been active for 3 days in our monitoring system, producing 244 flagged requests at a rate of ~81.3/day. Our records show 106 malicious IPs originating from Russia, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. With a threat score of 130/100, this IP is among the most dangerous addresses in our database. Immediate and complete blocking is strongly recommended.
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
Machine learning models analyze vast amounts of network traffic to identify attack patterns invisible to rule-based systems. Supervised models classify known attack types while unsupervised models detect anomalies that may indicate novel threats.