
ABUSE.MOM — 规矩点,否则你将被曝光
| 签名 | 描述 | 分数 | 严重性 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Danger strong hits: 6 | 高风险路径:Webshell、RCE、漏洞利用 | +100 | |
| Danger medium hits: 4 | 中等风险:管理面板、配置文件 | +40 | |
| Burst: 6 req / 2s | 请求频率异常——自动扫描 | +35 | |
| Foreign referer seen | 来自无关外部域名的Referer | +10 | |
| POST requests present | 自动分析检测到行为异常 | +8 |
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.
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89.110.123.103。
来自Shodan的网络侦察数据。开放端口可能表示正在运行的服务、错误配置或潜在的攻击面。
| Port | Service | Risk | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3389 | RDP | High | Remote Desktop Protocol — primary target for ransomware attacks |
⚠️ 在89.110.123.103上检测到1个高风险端口。暴露的RDP (3389)是勒索软件攻击的首要入口。 这些服务在没有严格防火墙规则的情况下不应公开访问。
数据来源:Shodan InternetDB。独立于abuse.mom进行扫描。
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。
89.110.123.103 has been assigned a threat score of 193/100 (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:
威胁情报分析将89.110.123.103与来自Amsterdam, Netherlands,运营在Servers Tech Fzco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。 在其15天的观察窗口期间,我们记录了来自此IP的2次敌对请求——平均每天约0.1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。 Netherlands目前在我们的数据库中占178个被封锁IP,使其成为恶意流量的重要来源。 评分193/100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 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.
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.
Bulletproof hosting providers deliberately ignore abuse complaints, creating safe havens for malicious operations. These providers often operate in jurisdictions with weak cybercrime enforcement, offering services specifically marketed to criminal organizations.