城市(city): unknown
省份(region): unknown
国家(country): Singapore
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 <<>> 27.114.252.44
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 5943
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;27.114.252.44. IN A
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
. 30 IN SOA a.root-servers.net. nstld.verisign-grs.com. 2025021701 1800 900 604800 86400
;; Query time: 57 msec
;; SERVER: 183.60.83.19#53(183.60.83.19)
;; WHEN: Tue Feb 18 11:37:15 CST 2025
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 106Host 44.252.114.27.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)Server: 183.60.83.19
Address: 183.60.83.19#53
** server can't find 44.252.114.27.in-addr.arpa: NXDOMAIN| IP | 类型 | 评论内容 | 时间 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 166.170.223.56 | attack | Brute forcing email accounts |
2020-10-03 19:40:18 |
| 167.172.25.74 | attackspam | no |
2020-10-03 19:45:14 |
| 207.244.252.113 | 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 |
2020-10-03 20:02:21 |
| 129.211.50.239 | attack | Oct 3 09:56:57 vm0 sshd[21235]: Failed password for root from 129.211.50.239 port 38374 ssh2 Oct 3 10:01:05 vm0 sshd[21288]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=129.211.50.239 ... |
2020-10-03 19:24:18 |
| 138.68.148.177 | attackbotsspam | Invalid user web from 138.68.148.177 port 50132 |
2020-10-03 20:06:41 |
| 116.68.160.114 | attackbots | Invalid user spark from 116.68.160.114 port 42784 |
2020-10-03 19:45:46 |
| 180.76.150.238 | attack | (sshd) Failed SSH login from 180.76.150.238 (CN/China/-): 5 in the last 3600 secs; Ports: *; Direction: inout; Trigger: LF_SSHD; Logs: Oct 3 06:56:49 server2 sshd[30093]: Invalid user vendas from 180.76.150.238 Oct 3 06:56:49 server2 sshd[30093]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=180.76.150.238 Oct 3 06:56:51 server2 sshd[30093]: Failed password for invalid user vendas from 180.76.150.238 port 53560 ssh2 Oct 3 07:01:16 server2 sshd[2385]: Invalid user user from 180.76.150.238 Oct 3 07:01:16 server2 sshd[2385]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=180.76.150.238 |
2020-10-03 19:29:33 |
| 45.80.175.4 | attackspam | spam |
2020-10-03 19:51:53 |
| 210.242.52.28 | attackspam | (sshd) Failed SSH login from 210.242.52.28 (TW/Taiwan/-): 5 in the last 3600 secs; Ports: *; Direction: inout; Trigger: LF_SSHD; Logs: Oct 3 07:42:08 server2 sshd[17003]: pam_unix(sshd:auth): authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=ssh ruser= rhost=210.242.52.28 user=mysql Oct 3 07:42:11 server2 sshd[17003]: Failed password for mysql from 210.242.52.28 port 59731 ssh2 Oct 3 07:50:25 server2 sshd[18350]: Invalid user ubuntu from 210.242.52.28 port 33464 Oct 3 07:50:27 server2 sshd[18350]: Failed password for invalid user ubuntu from 210.242.52.28 port 33464 ssh2 Oct 3 07:52:23 server2 sshd[18683]: Invalid user deploy from 210.242.52.28 port 3517 |
2020-10-03 19:28:26 |
| 117.50.63.120 | attack | SSH login attempts. |
2020-10-03 19:30:41 |
| 174.217.20.86 | attack | Brute forcing email accounts |
2020-10-03 19:26:45 |
| 128.199.88.188 | attackspam | Invalid user user2 from 128.199.88.188 port 58799 |
2020-10-03 20:02:56 |
| 46.187.38.244 | attackbots |
|
2020-10-03 19:53:34 |
| 71.94.65.190 | attackbotsspam | ssh 22 |
2020-10-03 19:27:40 |
| 212.70.149.36 | attackbotsspam | Oct 3 13:57:48 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 13:58:05 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 13:58:24 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 13:58:44 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 13:59:10 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 13:59:29 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 13:59:49 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[6789\]: warning: unknown\[212.70.149.36\]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 Oct 3 14:00:15 s1 postfix/submission/smtpd\[13467\]: warning: unknown\[212.70. |
2020-10-03 20:04:39 |