39.35.192.228📋 Copy

# IP Intelligence Briefing: 39.35.192.228

Classification: LOW RISK / DEFENSIVE MONITORING RECOMMENDED

Date: Current Intelligence Cycle

Analyst: IPDebrief Intelligence Unit

---

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IP address 39.35.192.228 presents a low-risk profile with a reputation score of 25. The asset is classified as firewalled with no active services, indicating limited exposure to external scanning or exploitation. Geographic validation shows inconsistencies between reported and observed locations requiring validation. The IP belongs to ASN 17557 (PTCLBB-PK) under organization Munir Ahmed within the APNIC RIR region.

---

## OWNERSHIP & NETWORK ATTRIBUTES

Control Plane Data:

• ASN: 17557
• BGP Prefix: 39.35.192.0/19
• RIR: APNIC
• Route Stability: FALSE (route changes observed in past 30 days)
• DNSSEC: Valid
• DNSBL Listings: 1 of 8 total lists

Network Registration:

• Organization: Munir Ahmed
• Network Name: PTCLBB-PK
• RIR Registry: APNIC
• Abuse Contact: csirt@ptcl.net (available via RDAP)

Geolocation Analysis:

• Claimed Location: Pakistan (Islamabad, 24.8591°N, 66.9983°E)
• Observed Location: France (Marseille, Sindh region)
• GeoValidation: INCONSISTENT (geo_plausible: false in profile data)
• Distance from claimed coordinates: 5,854.9 km
• Probe Count: 0

Connectivity:

• Traceroute: 12 hops
• Transit Networks: Comcast
• RTT Metrics: First hop 0.2ms, Last hop 205.3ms, 2 timed-out hops

---

## NETWORK ROLE & SERVICES

Service Assessment:

• Open Ports: None detected
• TLS Certificate: Not present
• HTTP Title/Server Banner: None
• Classification: Firewalled / No Services

DNS Analysis:

• PTR Hostnames: None
• Forward Resolution: Confirmed false
• Hosted Domains: 0
• Email Authentication: No SPF, No DMARC records
• TXT Record Count: 0

Infrastructure Classification:

• Cloud Provider: No
• CDN: No
• VPN: No
• Proxy: No
• Tor Exit Node: No
• Hosting: No
• Mobile: No
• Residential: No
• Bogon: No
• Anycast: No

---

## THREAT INTELLIGENCE

Threat Indicators:

• Abuse Confidence Score: Not available
• Blacklist Count: 0
• Known Campaigns: None
• Threat Feeds: Empty
• Known Attacker: False
• Spam Source: False

Behavioral Metrics:

• Honeypot Hits: 0
• Enumeration Strikes: 0
• WAF Violations: 0
• Total Incidents: 0
• Is Persistently Malicious: False
• Threat Persistence Days: 0

Risk Scores:

• Overall Risk Score: 25 (Low Risk)
• Provider Score: 0
• Authority Score: 0
• Stability Score: 0

---

## OBSERVATION HISTORY

Temporal Analysis:

• Total Observations: 14
• Ownership Changes: 0
• Average Ownership Days: Not applicable
• Threat Observation Count: 0

Recent Signal Timeline (2026-07-27):

1. 20:29:15 UTC - RTT measurement (avg: 210.6ms, max: 214ms, min: 208ms, jitter: 2.15ms, geo_plausible: true)

2. 20:26:23 UTC - Ownership validation (0 changes, not persistently malicious)

3. 20:26:05 UTC - Subnet classification (clean, abuse_density: 0, classification: clean)

4. 20:25:40 UTC - Org resolution (Munir Ahmed, ASN null, APNIC RIR)

5. 20:25:40 UTC - Geo resolution (Pakistan, Islamabad, PTCLBB-PK, csirt@ptcl.net)

Persistence Assessment:

• The IP shows no evidence of persistent malicious behavior.
• Ownership has remained stable with zero changes recorded.
• No threat persistence days detected.

---

## NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS (/24 Subnet: 39.35.192.0/24)

Subnet Profile:

• Subnet: 39.35.192.228/24
• Abuse Density: 0 (Clean)
• Classification: Clean
• Inherited Risk: 0
• Total Siblings: 4
• Active Siblings: 1
• Threat Siblings: 0

Neighbor IP Risk Assessment:

Risk Distribution:

• High Risk: 0
• Medium Risk: 1
• Low Risk: 2

---

## RELATIONSHIP GRAPH

Identified Relationships:

1. Same Network: PTCLBB-PK (Network)

2. Same Network: PTCLBB-PK (Network)

*Note: Relationships indicate the IP is part of the PTCLBB-PK network infrastructure.*

---

## ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE

Monitoring Recommendations

1. Continue Passive Monitoring: The IP presents low-risk characteristics with no active services. Passive monitoring is sufficient for threat detection.

2. Geo-Validation Alert: Geographic inconsistencies between claimed (Pakistan) and observed (France) locations warrant periodic validation. Monitor for any location shifts that may indicate infrastructure changes.

3. Route Stability Watch: Route stability is flagged as false with changes observed in the past 30 days. Monitor for any significant BGP announcements that could indicate infrastructure changes.

4. Neighborhood Correlation: The /24 subnet maintains a clean classification with 0 abuse density. No immediate correlation with malicious activity detected.

5. No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined with firewalled status and zero threat

indicators does not warrant immediate blocking or alerting.

6. Service Initiation Watch: If the IP begins publishing open ports or HTTP/HTTPS services, update the risk assessment immediately. Current configuration suggests a backend or internal-facing asset.

---

**CONCLUSION

Thinking Process:

1. Analyze the Request:

* User wants me to continue exactly where I left off in the previous response.

* The previous response ended with: "CONCLUSION"

* I need to complete the "CONCLUSION" section and finish the intelligence briefing.

* I must not repeat any text already written.

* I must maintain the tone, style, and format of the previous response (third person, past tense, professional, actionable).

* I must use only the data returned by the tools (IPDebrief tools) in the previous turn.

* I must not include disclaimers about being an AI.

2. Review Previous Content:

* The briefing covered Executive Summary, Ownership, Network Role, Threat Intelligence, Observation History, Neighborhood Analysis, Relationships, and Actionable Intelligence (points 1-5).

* The last point in Actionable Intelligence was cut off at "No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined with firewalled status and zero threat".

* The Conclusion section started with "CONCLUSION" but was empty.

3. Drafting the Continuation:

* Complete the sentence started in Actionable Intelligence point 6 (actually, looking back, the previous model response ended with point 6 starting, then cut off at point 5's end). Wait, let's re-examine the cutoff.

* Previous response end: "5. No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined with firewalled status and zero threat"

* Then the model output continued in the *next* turn (which was actually the user asking me to continue).

* Wait, I need to check the conversation history carefully.

* Turn 1 (User): Generate briefing...

* Turn 2 (Model): Full briefing (ended with "5. No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined with firewalled status and zero threat" - wait, looking at the actual output provided in the prompt).

* Actually, in the *first* model response provided in the prompt (Turn 2), it ended abruptly: "5. No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined with firewalled status and zero threat"

* Then the User said "Continue exactly where you left off."

* Then the Model responded (Turn 3): "indicators does not warrant immediate blocking or alerting." ... "CONCLUSION"

* Wait, I am the model now. I need to continue from "CONCLUSION".

* Wait, looking at the conversation provided in the prompt:

* User: Generate...

* Model: [Full response ending with "...zero threat" (cut off mid-sentence? No, it ends with "zero threat" then newline?)] -> Actually, looking at the first model output in the prompt history: It ends with "5. No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined with firewalled status and zero threat"

* User: Continue exactly where you left off.

* Model: "indicators does not warrant immediate blocking or alerting.\n\n6. Service Initiation Watch:..." -> Wait, the second model response in the prompt history (Turn 3) actually completed the sentence from Turn 2?

* Let's look at the Turn 3 output in the prompt provided to me *now*.

* Turn 3 Output: "indicators does not warrant immediate blocking or alerting.\n\n6. Service Initiation Watch: The IP presents low-risk characteristics with no active services. Passive monitoring is sufficient for threat detection.\n\n2. Geo-Validation Alert:..."

* Wait, the Turn 3 output provided in the *prompt* I am reading right now shows the model continuing from "zero threat". It completes the sentence. Then it lists point 6. Then it ends with "CONCLUSION".

* So I need to continue from "CONCLUSION".

* Wait, I need to check the exact text of the Turn 3 model output provided in the prompt.

* Turn 3 Output (from the prompt):

"indicators does not warrant immediate blocking or alerting.\n\n6. Service Initiation Watch: If the IP begins publishing open ports or HTTP/HTTPS services, update the risk assessment immediately. Current configuration suggests a backend or internal-facing asset.\n\n---\n\nCONCLUSION"

* Okay, so I need to write the content under CONCLUSION.

4. Drafting Content:

* Summarize the findings based on the data collected.

* Reiterate the risk level (Low).

* Mention the key observations (firewalled, geo inconsistency, clean neighborhood).

* Final recommendation (monitor, no immediate action).

* Ensure no text is repeated from previous sections.

* Ensure professional tone.

5. Refining the Content:

* Start with a summary statement.

* Reference the risk score (25).

* Reference the network role (Firewalled).

* Reference the neighborhood status (Clean).

* Close the briefing.

6. Constraint Check:

* Do not repeat text already written.

* Third person, past tense (mostly).

* No AI disclaimers.

* Use only tool data.

7. Final Polish:

* Make sure it flows naturally from "CONCLUSION".

* Draft:

Based on the gathered intelligence, the target IP 39.35.192.228 is classified as a low-risk asset. The absence of open ports and services reduces the immediate threat surface. Geographic data validation requires periodic review due to location discrepancies. The surrounding subnet demonstrates a clean abuse profile. SOC teams should maintain standard monitoring protocols without generating elevated alerts for this address.

8. Wait, one more check:

* The Turn 3 model output in the prompt history *is* the text I need to continue from.

* It ends with "CONCLUSION".

* So I just write the conclusion text.

* Wait, looking closely at the Turn 3 output provided in the prompt:

"6. Service Initiation Watch: If the IP begins publishing open ports or HTTP/HTTPS services, update the risk assessment immediately. Current configuration suggests a backend or internal-facing asset.\n\n---\n\nCONCLUSION"

* So I need to write the text immediately following that.

* Draft:

Based on the comprehensive analysis, the target IP 39.35.192.228 presents a low-risk profile suitable for standard monitoring. The absence of active services and a clean neighborhood classification support a defensive posture without immediate blocking. Geographic inconsistencies between claimed and observed locations warrant periodic revalidation but do not currently indicate malicious infrastructure. No active threat campaigns or behavioral strikes were observed. Continued observation is recommended to monitor for service initiation or reputation changes.

* Wait, I need to ensure I don't repeat the "Service Initiation Watch" text or the "No Immediate Blocking" text.

* I should focus on the summary.

* Let's check the Turn 3 output again. It actually had a point 6 "Service Initiation Watch" and then ended with "CONCLUSION".

* Wait, in the Turn 3 output provided in the prompt, it looks like it started with "indicators does not warrant..." which completed the sentence from Turn 2.

* Okay, so I am continuing from "CONCLUSION".

* Content to generate:

Based on the gathered intelligence, the target IP 39.35.192.228 is classified as a low-risk asset. The absence of open ports and services reduces the immediate threat surface. Geographic data validation requires periodic review due to location discrepancies. The surrounding subnet demonstrates a clean abuse profile. SOC teams should maintain standard monitoring protocols without generating elevated alerts for this address.

* Wait, I need to make sure I don't use the exact same phrasing as Turn 3 if it was already written. Turn 3 ended with "CONCLUSION". It did not write any content under it. So I am safe to write the conclusion.

* Wait, I need to check if the Turn 3 output actually ended with "CONCLUSION" or if I am misremembering the cutoff.

* Looking at the prompt's Turn 3 (the second model response):

"indicators does not warrant immediate blocking or alerting.\n\n6. Service Initiation Watch: If the IP begins publishing open ports or HTTP/HTTPS services, update the risk assessment immediately. Current configuration suggests a backend or internal-facing asset.\n\n---\n\nCONCLUSION"

* Yes, it ends with "CONCLUSION".

* Okay, I will write the conclusion.

* Wait, I need to check the Turn 2 output again. Turn 2 ended with "5. No Immediate Blocking Required: Risk score of 25 (Low) combined

CONCLUSION

Based on the comprehensive analysis, the target IP 39.35.192.228 presents a low-risk profile suitable for standard monitoring. The absence of active services and a clean neighborhood classification support a defensive posture without immediate blocking. Geographic inconsistencies between claimed and observed locations warrant periodic revalidation but do not currently indicate malicious infrastructure. No active threat campaigns or behavioral strikes were observed. Continued observation is recommended to monitor for service initiation or reputation changes.

END OF BRIEFING

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Verify critical details independently.