IP威胁报告
146.103.107.252
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger medium hits: 2 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +20 | |
| Foreign referer | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +10 | |
| Foreign referer seen | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +10 | |
| Form spam: no_js_check | 请求内容中的垃圾/恶意关键词 | +0 | |
| POST requests present | 自动分析检测到行为异常 | +8 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | 自动分析检测到行为异常 | +20 |
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 146.103.107.252 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
📧 垃圾邮件防护
在所有公共表单上启用CAPTCHA。添加蜜罐字段。将每个IP的提交限制为每分钟3次。部署Akismet或CleanTalk。
🔎 目录扫描防御
IP 146.103.107.252正在枚举目录。在10次以上404错误后配置fail2ban apache-404 jail。禁用目录列表。
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
146.103.107.252 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (High). 该IP被评为高级别威胁。网络管理员应实施阻止规则并监控来自此地址的任何连接。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
我们的监控基础设施已将146.103.107.252（地理位置为Amsterdam, Netherlands，运营在Servers Tech Fzco的网络中）识别为可疑网络活动的来源。 我们的传感器在95天内捕获了来自此地址的980次恶意请求，反映出每天约10.3次的持续攻击节奏。 被归类为托管IP，此地址可能运行在租用的服务器或云实例上。攻击者偏好数据中心IP因其高带宽和一次性特点。 该IP表现出目录枚举行为，系统地请求不存在的路径以发现隐藏文件和配置错误的资源。 Netherlands目前在我们的数据库中占178个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 威胁评分70/100将此IP置于高风险类别。建议在防火墙级别进行封锁。
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 Netherlands
185.184.192.251 (338)45.88.138.44 (320)45.82.64.236 (315)5.181.169.192 (313)157.22.73.141 (313)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 API Abuse and Enumeration
Modern attacks increasingly target APIs rather than traditional web interfaces. Attackers enumerate endpoints, test for broken authentication, and exploit excessive data exposure. API attacks are harder to detect as they mimic legitimate programmatic access patterns.
💡 Behavioral Analysis vs Signature Detection
Signature-based detection matches known attack patterns but misses novel threats. Behavioral analysis identifies anomalies in request patterns, timing, and volume, catching zero-day attacks that signatures cannot recognize.