IP威胁报告
34.82.67.197
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 13/2s | 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 34.82.67.197 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34.82.67.197。
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
34.82.67.197 has been assigned a threat score of 80/100 (Critical). 如此高的分数标志着一个关键威胁行为者。该地址在多个检测向量上表现出持续的、激进的恶意行为。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
我们的监控基础设施已将34.82.67.197（地理位置为The Dalles, United States，运营在Google LLC的网络中）识别为可疑网络活动的来源。 在其2天的观察窗口期间，我们记录了来自此IP的113次敌对请求——平均每天约56.5次。 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。 United States目前在我们的数据库中占140个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 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.
💡 HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 Security Implications
Modern HTTP protocols introduce new attack surfaces including stream multiplexing abuse, header compression attacks (HPACK bombing), and rapid reset attacks. Security tools must evolve to handle these protocol-specific threats effectively.