IP威胁报告
151.240.93.18
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst 7/2s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 | |
| Burst 11/10s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 |
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 151.240.93.18 已在应用层封锁（HTTP 403）
- 建议在防火墙层（iptables/CSF）进行封锁
- 在同一/24子网中检测到其他恶意IP——建议封锁 151.240.93.0/24
- 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
🌊 洪水/DDoS缓解
在nginx中实施limit_req_zone。部署具有DDoS防护的CDN。配置SYN cookies和连接跟踪以限制151.240.93.18。
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
151.240.93.18 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (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
威胁情报分析将151.240.93.18与来自Portland, United States，运营在GSL Networks Pty LTD的网络中的恶意活动相关联。该地址自首次检测以来一直处于观察状态。 该地址在我们的监控系统中活跃了1天，产生了1次标记请求，速率约为每天1次。 该地址作为VPN/代理出口节点运营。攻击者通过匿名化服务路由流量以隐藏真实位置。 来自此IP的基于速率的攻击旨在通过大量请求洪水压垮服务器资源。 United States目前在我们的数据库中占103个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 评分70/100表明这是一个已确认的恶意行为者。网络级别封锁是适当的。
This IP is associated with a VPN or proxy service. Attackers frequently route their traffic through anonymizing services to obscure their true location. This makes attribution more challenging but the malicious behavior patterns remain detectable.
Related Threats
🇺🇸 Top threats from United States
104.28.246.115 (350)104.28.214.122 (350)216.73.160.52 (350)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
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.
💡 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.