
ABUSE.MOM — 规矩点,否则你将被曝光
| 签名 | 描述 | 分数 | 严重性 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 3 | 高风险路径:Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +75 | |
| Danger medium hits: 2 | 中等风险:管理面板、配置文件 | +20 | |
| 404 ratio >= 60% | 大多数请求返回404——目录枚举 | +25 |
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.
IP 158.220.126.105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。
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 |
| 110 | POP3 | Low | Service on port 110 |
| 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 |
| 9000 | Unknown | Low | Service on port 9000 |
⚠️ 在158.220.126.105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。
数据来源:Shodan InternetDB。独立于abuse.mom进行扫描。
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。
158.220.126.105 has been assigned a threat score of 120/100 (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:
地址158.220.126.105来源于Lauterbourg, France,运营在Contabo GmbH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。 在其1天的观察窗口期间,我们记录了来自此IP的1次敌对请求——平均每天约1次。 此地址属于数据中心或云托管提供商。托管IP经常被专门租用廉价VPS实例来进行攻击的威胁行为者利用。 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。 France目前在我们的数据库中占202个被封锁IP,使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 威胁评分120/100,此IP属于我们数据库中最危险的地址之一。强烈建议立即完全封锁。
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.
Request smuggling exploits differences in how front-end and back-end servers parse HTTP requests. This technique can bypass security controls, poison web caches, and hijack other users sessions by desynchronizing request boundaries.
Edge computing pushes processing closer to users but expands the attack surface. Edge nodes often run in less secure environments than centralized data centers, creating new opportunities for physical access attacks and supply chain compromises.