IP威胁报告
34.71.190.4
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 14/2s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 | |
| Burst 16/10s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 | |
| Danger medium hits: 1 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +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 34.71.190.4 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34.71.190.4。
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
34.71.190.4 has been assigned a threat score of 80/100 (Critical). 这代表着极高风险等级。我们的检测系统已从该地址标记出多个高置信度的恶意意图指标。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
威胁情报分析将34.71.190.4与来自Council Bluffs, United States，运营在Google LLC的网络中的恶意活动相关联。该地址自首次检测以来一直处于观察状态。 我们的传感器在1天内捕获了来自此地址的39次恶意请求，反映出每天约39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。 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。 我们的记录显示来自United States的140个恶意IP，使其成为全球威胁活动的重要贡献者。 威胁评分80/100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 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.
💡 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.