IP威胁报告
64.31.58.153
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 medium hits: 2 | 中等风险：管理面板、配置文件 | +20 | |
| Danger strong hits: 2 | 高风险路径：Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +50 | |
| UA suspicious | 自动分析检测到行为异常 | +15 |
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 64.31.58.153 已在应用层封锁（HTTP 403）
- 建议在防火墙层（iptables/CSF）进行封锁
- 在同一/24子网中检测到其他恶意IP——建议封锁 64.31.58.0/24
- 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
🤖 User-Agent异常防御
IP 64.31.58.153显示可疑的UA行为。阻止空User-Agent请求。为敏感端点实施基于JavaScript的机器人检测。
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
64.31.58.153 has been assigned a threat score of 85/100 (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
地址64.31.58.153来源于New York, United States，运营在Limestone Networks, Inc.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。 我们的传感器在5天内捕获了来自此地址的98次恶意请求，反映出每天约19.6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。 检测到可疑的User-Agent异常，包括空的、伪造的或快速轮换的UA字符串——自动化扫描工具的特征。 我们的记录显示来自United States的36,315个恶意IP，使其成为全球威胁活动的主要贡献者。 威胁评分85/100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)104.28.214.122 (350)216.73.160.52 (350)34.187.158.4 (340)34.186.187.208 (340)View all →🏢 Same network: AS46475
45.159.21.231 (268)88.218.45.194 (268)45.159.22.202 (253)194.99.24.160 (245)185.101.21.119 (245)View all →Security Intelligence
💡 API Abuse and Enumeration
Modern attacks increasingly target APIs rather than traditional web interfaces. Attackers enumerate endpoints, test for broken authentication, and exploit excessive data exposure. API attacks are harder to detect as they mimic legitimate programmatic access patterns.
💡 False Positive Management
False positives erode trust in security systems and waste analyst resources. Effective management requires feedback loops, allowlisting mechanisms, contextual analysis, and regular tuning of detection rules based on operational experience.