城市(city): unknown
省份(region): unknown
国家(country): United States
运营商(isp): unknown
主机名(hostname): unknown
机构(organization): unknown
使用类型(Usage Type): unknown
b; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> 104.21.28.134
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 32576
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;104.21.28.134. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
. 293 IN SOA a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2022021700 1800 900 604800 86400
;; Query time: 32 msec
;; SERVER: 183.60.83.19#53(183.60.83.19)
;; WHEN: Fri Feb 18 02:21:17 CST 2022
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106Host 134.28.21.104.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)Server: 183.60.83.19
Address: 183.60.83.19#53
** server can't find 134.28.21.104.in-addr.arpa: NXDOMAIN| IP | 类型 | 评论内容 | 时间 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.255.48.197 | attack | (From annabelle@merchantpay.top) I have a quick question about working with your business. Like most business owners you just want to survive through to 2021. In order for that to happen you need to save every dollar possible right? This is an honest question, would you continue with the high credit card processing fees if there was another way? New laws are on your side. Test this newly released card processing model this October - just send a phone number and we'll call. $24.99/mo Flat Fee Credit Card Processing (Unlimited) 1) As a small business owner accepting credit/debit, recently passed State Laws are on your side. - Were you aware? New state regulations now in effect, the law was successfully passed in 46 states - effective since August 2019. Since that date you shouldn't be paying above 0.75% Credit Card Processing Fees. 2) You're legally able to demand this new option. Bottom Line: Your processor isn't telling you everything. Why are they hiding the lower fee options? We repre |
2020-10-03 20:52:07 |
| 156.208.229.118 | attackbotsspam | Telnet Server BruteForce Attack |
2020-10-03 20:33:40 |
| 111.198.48.204 | attackspambots | Oct 2 16:43:41 Tower sshd[28959]: Connection from 111.198.48.204 port 53972 on 192.168.10.220 port 22 rdomain "" Oct 2 16:43:45 Tower sshd[28959]: Invalid user test from 111.198.48.204 port 53972 Oct 2 16:43:45 Tower sshd[28959]: error: Could not get shadow information for NOUSER Oct 2 16:43:45 Tower sshd[28959]: Failed password for invalid user test from 111.198.48.204 port 53972 ssh2 Oct 2 16:43:45 Tower sshd[28959]: Received disconnect from 111.198.48.204 port 53972:11: Bye Bye [preauth] Oct 2 16:43:45 Tower sshd[28959]: Disconnected from invalid user test 111.198.48.204 port 53972 [preauth] |
2020-10-03 20:37:53 |
| 167.172.36.232 | attack | Invalid user external from 167.172.36.232 port 46596 |
2020-10-03 20:44:49 |
| 120.133.136.75 | attack | Oct 3 02:18:10 ns308116 sshd[25787]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=120.133.136.75 user=root Oct 3 02:18:12 ns308116 sshd[25787]: Failed password for root from 120.133.136.75 port 45220 ssh2 Oct 3 02:25:09 ns308116 sshd[9462]: Invalid user ubuntu from 120.133.136.75 port 45695 Oct 3 02:25:09 ns308116 sshd[9462]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=120.133.136.75 Oct 3 02:25:11 ns308116 sshd[9462]: Failed password for invalid user ubuntu from 120.133.136.75 port 45695 ssh2 ... |
2020-10-03 20:22:55 |
| 166.62.122.244 | attackbotsspam | 166.62.122.244 - - [03/Oct/2020:12:54:18 +0100] "POST /wp-login.php HTTP/1.1" 200 2175 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0" 166.62.122.244 - - [03/Oct/2020:12:54:25 +0100] "POST /wp-login.php HTTP/1.1" 200 2207 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0" 166.62.122.244 - - [03/Oct/2020:12:54:28 +0100] "POST /wp-login.php HTTP/1.1" 200 2204 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:62.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/62.0" ... |
2020-10-03 20:21:40 |
| 103.240.237.182 | attackspam | Lines containing failures of 103.240.237.182 (max 1000) Oct 2 22:23:54 server sshd[5607]: Connection from 103.240.237.182 port 13041 on 62.116.165.82 port 22 Oct 2 22:23:54 server sshd[5607]: Did not receive identification string from 103.240.237.182 port 13041 Oct 2 22:23:57 server sshd[5611]: Connection from 103.240.237.182 port 10054 on 62.116.165.82 port 22 Oct 2 22:23:58 server sshd[5611]: Address 103.240.237.182 maps to dhcp.tripleplay.in, but this does not map back to the address - POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! Oct 2 22:23:58 server sshd[5611]: Invalid user admin1 from 103.240.237.182 port 10054 Oct 2 22:23:58 server sshd[5611]: Connection closed by 103.240.237.182 port 10054 [preauth] ........ ----------------------------------------------- https://www.blocklist.de/en/view.html?ip=103.240.237.182 |
2020-10-03 20:36:48 |
| 222.186.180.130 | attackbotsspam | Oct 3 12:57:12 scw-6657dc sshd[22794]: Failed password for root from 222.186.180.130 port 42797 ssh2 Oct 3 12:57:12 scw-6657dc sshd[22794]: Failed password for root from 222.186.180.130 port 42797 ssh2 Oct 3 12:57:13 scw-6657dc sshd[22794]: Failed password for root from 222.186.180.130 port 42797 ssh2 ... |
2020-10-03 21:00:30 |
| 103.57.220.28 | attackspambots | Automatic report - Banned IP Access |
2020-10-03 20:59:32 |
| 61.155.2.142 | attackspam | Invalid user cedric from 61.155.2.142 port 41089 |
2020-10-03 20:58:15 |
| 111.231.193.72 | attackbots | Oct 3 03:59:14 dev0-dcde-rnet sshd[7661]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=111.231.193.72 Oct 3 03:59:15 dev0-dcde-rnet sshd[7661]: Failed password for invalid user benny from 111.231.193.72 port 33508 ssh2 Oct 3 04:08:44 dev0-dcde-rnet sshd[7743]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=111.231.193.72 |
2020-10-03 20:19:46 |
| 60.174.248.244 | attackspam |
|
2020-10-03 21:01:31 |
| 64.225.11.24 | attackbotsspam | Invalid user admin from 64.225.11.24 port 41874 |
2020-10-03 20:20:26 |
| 122.51.31.40 | attackspam | Invalid user it from 122.51.31.40 port 37358 |
2020-10-03 20:19:15 |
| 120.9.254.171 | attackspambots | Port Scan detected! ... |
2020-10-03 20:31:24 |