IP Threat Report
98.159.233.53
ABUSE.MOM — BEHAVE OR GET EXPOSED
Geolocation & Classification
Detection Signatures
| Signature | Description | Points | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | Majority of requests returned 404 — enumeration | +15 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +10 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | Medium-risk: admin panels, config files | +20 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | High-risk paths: shells, RCE vectors, exploits | +25 | |
| Foreign referer | Referer from unrelated external domain | +10 | |
| UA changed | Multiple User-Agents — bot rotation technique | +25 |
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 98.159.233.53 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 98.159.233.0/24
- 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 98.159.233.53 is enumerating directories. Configure fail2ban apache-404 jail after 10+ 404 errors. Disable directory listings. Normalize all 404 responses.
🤖 Bot Detection
Address UA spoofing from 98.159.233.53: maintain blocklist of known malicious UA strings, require consistent UA across sessions, implement TLS fingerprinting.
Neighbors in 98.159.233.0/24
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
98.159.233.53 has been assigned a threat score of 80/100 (Critical). This represents a critical risk level. Our detection systems have flagged multiple high-confidence indicators of malicious intent from this address.
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
The address 98.159.233.53 originates from Albuquerque, United States, operating on the network of Datacamp Limited. It was identified through automated analysis of incoming network traffic across monitored endpoints. Over a period of 3 days, this IP generated 184 malicious requests, averaging approximately 61.3 requests per 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 Path Enumeration combined with User-Agent Anomaly indicate a coordinated assault rather than opportunistic scanning. Our records show 164 malicious IPs originating from United States, positioning it as a significant contributor to global threat activity. At 80/100, this IP warrants immediate defensive action.
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)104.28.246.113 (340)104.28.246.116 (340)104.28.235.58 (340)104.28.246.122 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Vulnerability Scanning Explained
Vulnerability scanning is the automated process of probing web applications for known weaknesses. Attackers use tools like Nuclei, Nikto, and ZAP to test thousands of hosts per hour, looking for exposed configuration files, outdated software, and default credentials.
💡 Subnet-Level vs IP-Level Blocking
When multiple IPs in a subnet show malicious behavior, subnet blocking efficiently neutralizes the threat. However, overly broad blocking risks impacting legitimate users. Analysis of subnet ownership and historical behavior guides appropriate blocking scope.