| 111.62.40.36 |
attackspam |
Unauthorized SSH login attempts |
2020-10-04 04:17:56 |
| 195.133.56.185 |
attackspam |
(mod_security) mod_security (id:210730) triggered by 195.133.56.185 (CZ/Czechia/-): 5 in the last 300 secs |
2020-10-04 04:48:36 |
| 64.225.11.24 |
attack |
Oct 2 19:02:33 *hidden* sshd[10385]: Invalid user user from 64.225.11.24 port 47374 Oct 2 19:02:31 *hidden* sshd[10382]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=64.225.11.24 user=root Oct 2 19:02:33 *hidden* sshd[10382]: Failed password for *hidden* from 64.225.11.24 port 42030 ssh2 |
2020-10-04 04:15:56 |
| 175.137.104.57 |
attack |
Lines containing failures of 175.137.104.57 (max 1000)
Oct 2 22:27:37 srv sshd[98150]: Connection closed by 175.137.104.57 port 61298
Oct 2 22:27:40 srv sshd[98151]: Invalid user 666666 from 175.137.104.57 port 61479
Oct 2 22:27:40 srv sshd[98151]: Connection closed by invalid user 666666 175.137.104.57 port 61479 [preauth]
........
-----------------------------------------------
https://www.blocklist.de/en/view.html?ip=175.137.104.57 |
2020-10-04 04:47:51 |
| 154.92.19.140 |
attackbots |
Brute force SMTP login attempted.
... |
2020-10-04 04:27:47 |
| 1.255.48.197 |
attackspambots |
(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 |
2020-10-04 04:44:26 |
| 180.76.57.58 |
attackbots |
(sshd) Failed SSH login from 180.76.57.58 (CN/China/-): 5 in the last 3600 secs; Ports: *; Direction: inout; Trigger: LF_SSHD; Logs: Oct 3 14:36:21 server2 sshd[19950]: Invalid user user1 from 180.76.57.58
Oct 3 14:36:21 server2 sshd[19950]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=180.76.57.58
Oct 3 14:36:23 server2 sshd[19950]: Failed password for invalid user user1 from 180.76.57.58 port 51248 ssh2
Oct 3 14:43:39 server2 sshd[30963]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=180.76.57.58 user=root
Oct 3 14:43:41 server2 sshd[30963]: Failed password for root from 180.76.57.58 port 53548 ssh2 |
2020-10-04 04:21:01 |
| 220.186.173.217 |
attack |
Oct 3 17:29:34 vm1 sshd[30346]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=220.186.173.217
Oct 3 17:29:36 vm1 sshd[30346]: Failed password for invalid user laura from 220.186.173.217 port 45818 ssh2
... |
2020-10-04 04:22:11 |
| 61.97.248.227 |
attackspambots |
2020-10-03T22:22:16+0200 Failed SSH Authentication/Brute Force Attack. (Server 4) |
2020-10-04 04:36:01 |
| 34.120.202.146 |
attack |
RU spamvertising, health fraud - From: GlucaFIX
UBE 185.176.220.179 (EHLO gopxk.imkeeperr.com) 2 Cloud Ltd.
Spam link redfloppy.com = 185.246.116.174 Vpsville LLC – phishing redirect:
a) aptrk13.com = 35.204.93.160 Google
b) www.ep20trk.com = 34.120.202.146 Google
c) www.glucafix.us = 104.27.187.98, 104.27.186.98, 172.67.201.182 Cloudflare
d) glucafix.us = ditto
Images -
- http://redfloppy.com/web/imgs/mi1tb6fg.png = dailybetterhealth.com = 104.27.138.27, 104.27.139.27, 172.67.218.161 Cloudflare
- http://redfloppy.com/web/imgs/24sc48jt.png = unsub; no entity/address |
2020-10-04 04:33:59 |
| 217.21.54.221 |
attack |
Invalid user jiayuanyang from 217.21.54.221 port 46354 |
2020-10-04 04:25:06 |
| 111.198.48.204 |
attack |
Oct 3 15:45:45 h2646465 sshd[26909]: Invalid user squid from 111.198.48.204
Oct 3 15:45:45 h2646465 sshd[26909]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=111.198.48.204
Oct 3 15:45:45 h2646465 sshd[26909]: Invalid user squid from 111.198.48.204
Oct 3 15:45:47 h2646465 sshd[26909]: Failed password for invalid user squid from 111.198.48.204 port 41156 ssh2
Oct 3 15:54:58 h2646465 sshd[27644]: Invalid user ftpuser from 111.198.48.204
Oct 3 15:54:58 h2646465 sshd[27644]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=111.198.48.204
Oct 3 15:54:58 h2646465 sshd[27644]: Invalid user ftpuser from 111.198.48.204
Oct 3 15:55:00 h2646465 sshd[27644]: Failed password for invalid user ftpuser from 111.198.48.204 port 39430 ssh2
Oct 3 15:59:30 h2646465 sshd[28274]: Invalid user lisa from 111.198.48.204
... |
2020-10-04 04:30:55 |
| 159.89.188.167 |
attack |
Oct 4 02:07:36 itv-usvr-01 sshd[8288]: Invalid user build from 159.89.188.167 |
2020-10-04 04:22:43 |
| 119.45.46.159 |
attack |
Oct 3 22:38:48 v22019038103785759 sshd\[8173\]: Invalid user myuser1 from 119.45.46.159 port 59826
Oct 3 22:38:48 v22019038103785759 sshd\[8173\]: pam_unix\(sshd:auth\): authentication failure\; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=119.45.46.159
Oct 3 22:38:50 v22019038103785759 sshd\[8173\]: Failed password for invalid user myuser1 from 119.45.46.159 port 59826 ssh2
Oct 3 22:44:41 v22019038103785759 sshd\[8809\]: pam_unix\(sshd:auth\): authentication failure\; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=119.45.46.159 user=root
Oct 3 22:44:43 v22019038103785759 sshd\[8809\]: Failed password for root from 119.45.46.159 port 35086 ssh2
... |
2020-10-04 04:47:19 |
| 156.96.56.54 |
attackspambots |
Port probe, connect, and relay attempt on SMTP:25.
Spammer. IP blocked. |
2020-10-04 04:19:18 |