IP威胁报告
157.20.82.7
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 strong hits: 2 | 高风险路径：Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +50 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +10 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | 大多数请求返回404——目录枚举 | +15 | |
| Foreign referer seen | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +10 |
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 157.20.82.7 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 157.20.82.7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。
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | FTP | Medium | File Transfer Protocol — often targeted for anonymous login attacks |
| 22 | SSH | Low | Secure Shell — common brute force target for remote access |
| 25 | SMTP | Medium | SMTP mail server — can be abused for spam relay |
| 53 | DNS | Low | DNS server — potential for DNS amplification attacks |
| 80 | HTTP | Low | HTTP web server — standard web traffic |
| 111 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 111 |
| 143 | IMAP | Low | Service on port 143 |
| 443 | HTTPS | Low | HTTPS web server — encrypted web traffic |
| 465 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 465 |
| 587 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 587 |
| 993 | IMAPS | Low | Service on port 993 |
| 995 | POP3S | Low | Service on port 995 |
| 3306 | MySQL | High | MySQL database — should never be exposed to the internet |
| 8080 | HTTP-Alt | Low | HTTP alternative port — often used for admin panels or proxies |
| 8081 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 8081 |
⚠️ 在157.20.82.7上检测到2个高风险端口。 这些服务在没有严格防火墙规则的情况下不应公开访问。
| CVE ID | Link |
|---|---|
| CVE-2017-15906 | NVD → |
| CVE-2008-3844 | NVD → |
| CVE-2026-35414 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-3620 | NVD → |
| CVE-2019-6111 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-42116 | NVD → |
| CVE-2007-2768 | NVD → |
| CVE-2024-39929 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-3559 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-15919 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51385 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-67896 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-42119 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-14145 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-20685 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51766 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-51767 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-36368 | NVD → |
| CVE-2016-20012 | NVD → |
| CVE-2020-15778 | NVD → |
| CVE-2022-37451 | NVD → |
| CVE-2018-15473 | NVD → |
| CVE-2025-26465 | NVD → |
| CVE-2023-42114 | NVD → |
| CVE-2021-41617 | NVD → |
🔴 此主机有32个已知CVE与其暴露的服务相关联。如此大量的漏洞强烈表明软件严重过时。 请在NVD数据库中查看每个CVE的详细信息。
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
157.20.82.7 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (Critical). 这将其归入严重威胁类别。强烈建议在所有网络边界立即进行封锁。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
地址157.20.82.7来源于Vinhomes Ocean Park, Vietnam，运营在Interdigi Joint Stock Company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。 该地址在我们的监控系统中活跃了1天，产生了2次标记请求，速率约为每天2次。 该IP被归类为托管/数据中心基础设施，通常与用于自动化攻击活动、僵尸网络命令控制或大规模漏洞扫描的租用服务器相关联。 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。 Vietnam目前在我们的数据库中占101个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 威胁评分85/100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 Vietnam
103.216.118.66 (273)210.2.86.189 (235)103.61.123.221 (235)116.118.47.174 (235)14.225.32.188 (235)View all →🏢 Same network: AS151858
View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Directory Traversal Attacks
Path traversal attacks attempt to access files outside the intended directory by manipulating file path references. Attackers use sequences like ../ to reach sensitive system files such as /etc/passwd or application configuration files.
💡 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.