IP威胁报告
104.235.237.27
ABUSE.MOM — 规矩点，否则你将被曝光
地理位置与分类
检测签名
| 签名 | 描述 | 分数 | 严重性 |
|---|---|---|---|
| UA bot: crawler | 检测到已知机器人/爬虫的User-Agent | +40 | |
| UA changed for same IP | 多个User-Agent——机器人轮换技术 | +25 |
观察到的活动
从服务器访问日志重建的HTTP请求。出于安全考虑，目标域名已隐藏。
* Typical request patterns for detected signatures. Actual target domains are redacted.
时间线
网络供应商
建议
已采取和建议的措施
- IP 104.235.237.27 已在应用层封锁（HTTP 403）
- 建议在防火墙层（iptables/CSF）进行封锁
- 通过abuse联系方式向网络供应商举报
- 确保敏感文件（.env、.git、备份）无法从网络访问
🤖 User-Agent异常防御
IP 104.235.237.27显示可疑的UA行为。阻止空User-Agent请求。为敏感端点实施基于JavaScript的机器人检测。
开放端口和服务
来自Shodan的网络侦察数据。开放端口可能表示正在运行的服务、错误配置或潜在的攻击面。
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9998 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 9998 |
| 32400 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 32400 |
| 64738 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 64738 |
数据来源：Shodan InternetDB。独立于abuse.mom进行扫描。
黑名单状态 (DNSBL)
该IP已通过全球邮件服务器和防火墙使用的主要DNS黑名单进行检查。
已检查：Spamhaus、SpamCop、Barracuda、SORBS、CBL、UCEProtect。
Threat Analysis
104.235.237.27 has been assigned a threat score of 65/100 (High). 在此威胁级别下，该IP被视为高风险。应更新防火墙规则以拒绝来自此来源的流量。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
地址104.235.237.27来源于Wyoming, United States，运营在Frontier Communications Solutions的网络中。它是通过对受监控端点的入站网络流量进行自动分析而被识别的。 我们的传感器在1天内捕获了来自此地址的1次恶意请求，反映出每天约1次的持续攻击节奏。 从住宅网络运营，此IP可能代表一个被入侵的家庭网关或已被招募到更大攻击基础设施中的IoT设备。 检测到可疑的User-Agent异常，包括空的、伪造的或快速轮换的UA字符串——自动化扫描工具的特征。 我们的记录显示来自United States的124个恶意IP，使其成为全球威胁活动的重要贡献者。 评分65/100需要主动监控和速率限制。建议对敏感系统进行完全封锁。
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 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
💡 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.
💡 Responsible Disclosure Ethics
Responsible disclosure balances public safety with giving vendors time to patch vulnerabilities. The security community generally supports coordinated disclosure timelines, but disagreements about appropriate timeframes and full disclosure continue to drive policy debates.