IP威胁报告
179.1.48.47
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 medium hits: 2 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +20 | |
| Danger medium hits: 4 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +40 | |
| POST seen | 自动分析检测到行为异常 | +8 | |
| UA changed | 多个User-Agent——机器人轮换技术 | +25 |
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 179.1.48.47 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
🤖 User-Agent异常防御
IP 179.1.48.47显示可疑的UA行为。阻止空User-Agent请求。为敏感端点实施基于JavaScript的机器人检测。
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
179.1.48.47 has been assigned a threat score of 73/100 (High). 该IP被评为高级别威胁。网络管理员应实施阻止规则并监控来自此地址的任何连接。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
地址179.1.48.47来源于Cali, Colombia，运营在Internexa S.a. E.S.P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5天的时间内，此IP产生了238次恶意请求，平均每天约47.6次请求。 该地址被归类为住宅，意味着它可能属于终端用户ISP连接。来自住宅IP的恶意活动通常表明设备已被入侵或属于僵尸网络。 检测到可疑的User-Agent异常，包括空的、伪造的或快速轮换的UA字符串——自动化扫描工具的特征。 我们的记录显示来自Colombia的78个恶意IP，使其成为全球威胁活动的值得注意的贡献者。 威胁评分73/100将此IP置于高风险类别。建议在防火墙级别进行封锁。
This IP 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 Colombia
149.88.111.72 (255)191.109.98.73 (193)186.121.12.199 (163)67.73.243.12 (130)152.203.91.215 (128)View all →🏢 Same network: AS18678
View all →Security Intelligence
💡 File Upload Vulnerabilities
Insecure file upload functionality allows attackers to upload web shells, malware, or scripts that execute on the server. Proper validation must check file content, not just extensions, and uploaded files should be stored outside the web root.
💡 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.