IP威胁报告
74.66.64.212
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 404 ratio >= 60% | 大多数请求返回404——目录枚举 | +25 | |
| Danger strong hits: 1 | 高风险路径：Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +25 | |
| Foreign referer | 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 74.66.64.212 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 74.66.64.212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
74.66.64.212 has been assigned a threat score of 60/100 (High). 此分数表明高威胁严重性。该IP显示出明确的恶意行为模式，需要立即采取防御措施。
The following attack categories were identified:
📊 Threat Analysis
威胁情报分析将74.66.64.212与来自New York, United States，运营在Charter Communications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。 该地址在我们的监控系统中活跃了4天，产生了499次标记请求，速率约为每天124.8次。 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。 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。 United States目前在我们的数据库中占106个被封锁IP，使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 评分60/100需要主动监控和速率限制。建议对敏感系统进行完全封锁。
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.
💡 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.