IP威胁报告
34.24.59.193
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burst: 9 req / 2s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 | |
| Burst: 18 req / 10s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 |
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 34.24.59.193 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
🌊 洪水/DDoS缓解
在nginx中实施limit_req_zone。部署具有DDoS防护的CDN。配置SYN cookies和连接跟踪以限制34.24.59.193。
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
34.24.59.193 has been assigned a threat score of 70/100 (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
IP地址34.24.59.193已追溯至North Charleston, United States，运营在Google LLC的网络中。我们的威胁检测系统根据观察到的恶意行为模式标记了此地址。 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。 被归类为托管IP，此地址可能运行在租用的服务器或云实例上。攻击者偏好数据中心IP因其高带宽和一次性特点。 来自此IP的基于速率的攻击旨在通过大量请求洪水压垮服务器资源。 United States目前在我们的数据库中占142个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 评分70/100表明这是一个已确认的恶意行为者。网络级别封锁是适当的。
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
💡 DDoS Mitigation Approaches
Distributed denial of service attacks overwhelm infrastructure with traffic volume. Effective mitigation combines always-on traffic scrubbing, anycast network distribution, rate limiting, and the ability to quickly scale absorption capacity during attacks.
💡 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.