IP威胁报告
157.230.230.153
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 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | 大多数请求返回404——目录枚举 | +15 |
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 157.230.230.153 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 157.230.230.153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
157.230.230.153 has been assigned a threat score of 65/100 (High). 这将其归类为高严重性威胁。建议对敏感基础设施进行主动封锁。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
157.230.230.153注册在North Bergen, United States，运营在DigitalOcean, LLC的网络中。该IP在触发多个行为检测签名后首次出现在我们的威胁源中。 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。 该IP从数据中心基础设施运营，是有组织攻击行动中使用的典型地址。 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。 我们的记录显示来自United States的128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 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 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
💡 Command Injection Techniques
Command injection occurs when attackers insert operating system commands through application inputs. Successful exploitation grants direct server access, enabling data theft, malware installation, and lateral movement across networks.
💡 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.