IP威胁报告
156.241.202.185
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio 40-60% | 大多数请求返回404——目录枚举 | +15 | |
| Danger medium hits: 5 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +50 | |
| Foreign referer | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +10 | |
| Probe 302→404 | 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 156.241.202.185 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
🔎 目录扫描防御
IP 156.241.202.185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
156.241.202.185 has been assigned a threat score of 95/100 (Critical). 这代表着极高风险等级。我们的检测系统已从该地址标记出多个高置信度的恶意意图指标。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
我们的监控基础设施已将156.241.202.185（地理位置为Miami, United States，运营在DynaNode LLC的网络中）识别为可疑网络活动的来源。 该地址在我们的监控系统中活跃了2天，产生了236次标记请求，速率约为每天118次。 这是一个住宅IP地址，表明可能是被入侵的家用设备，如路由器、智能设备或参与僵尸网络的受感染工作站。 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。 United States目前在我们的数据库中占198个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 评分95/100将此地址置于最高严重性级别。应封锁并调查任何历史连接。
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
💡 WordPress-Specific Attack Vectors
WordPress sites face constant automated attacks targeting xmlrpc.php for brute force amplification, wp-login.php for credential theft, and vulnerable plugins for remote code execution. Over 90% of CMS-based attacks specifically target WordPress installations.
💡 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.