IP威胁报告
43.99.75.255
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: 10 | 高风险路径：Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +100 | |
| 404 ratio 40-60% | 大多数请求返回404——目录枚举 | +15 | |
| Probe pattern 302->404 same path | 自动分析检测到行为异常 | +20 | |
| 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 43.99.75.255 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
🔎 目录扫描防御
IP 43.99.75.255正在枚举目录。在10次以上404错误后配置fail2ban apache-404 jail。禁用目录列表。
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
43.99.75.255 has been assigned a threat score of 145/100 (Critical). 凭借此评分，该IP属于严重威胁级别——是我们监控数据库中最危险的地址之一。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
地址43.99.75.255来源于Hong Kong, Hong Kong，运营在Alibaba (US) Technology Co., Ltd.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。 该地址在我们的监控系统中活跃了1天，产生了1次标记请求，速率约为每天1次。 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。 该IP表现出目录枚举行为，系统地请求不存在的路径以发现隐藏文件和配置错误的资源。 Hong Kong目前在我们的数据库中占89个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的值得注意的来源。 评分145/100将此地址置于最高严重性级别。应封锁并调查任何历史连接。
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 Hong Kong
8.217.181.151 (215)43.99.86.17 (215)47.238.141.179 (215)47.238.29.109 (215)43.99.41.243 (215)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 Brute Force Attack Mechanics
Brute force attacks systematically try username and password combinations to gain unauthorized access. Modern attacks leverage credential databases from previous breaches, testing millions of combinations using distributed botnets across multiple IP addresses.
💡 Rate Limiting and Throttling Strategies
Effective rate limiting must balance protection against abuse with allowing legitimate traffic bursts. Sliding window algorithms, token buckets, and adaptive thresholds based on client reputation provide layered defense against flooding attacks.