IP威胁报告
43.166.134.114
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 strong hits: 3 | 高风险路径：Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +75 | |
| Foreign referer | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +10 | |
| Foreign referer seen | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +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 43.166.134.114 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
⚙️ 一般安全
将43.166.134.114添加到防火墙封锁列表。检查日志中的成功连接。在所有面向公众的服务上启用全面日志记录。
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
43.166.134.114 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (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。
📊 Threat Analysis
43.166.134.114注册在Ashburn, United States，运营在Aceville Pte.ltd的网络中。该IP在触发多个行为检测签名后首次出现在我们的威胁源中。 在88天的时间内，此IP产生了2,342次恶意请求，平均每天约26.6次请求。 从住宅网络运营，此IP可能代表一个被入侵的家庭网关或已被招募到更大攻击基础设施中的IoT设备。 United States目前在我们的数据库中占126个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 评分85/100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 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 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
💡 Credential Stuffing at Scale
Credential stuffing uses stolen username-password pairs from data breaches to attempt logins across many websites. Since users frequently reuse passwords, these automated attacks achieve success rates of 0.1-2%, which translates to thousands of compromised accounts from millions of attempts.
💡 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.