# 45.131.194.251 — IP Intelligence Summary 45.131.194.251 is an IPv4 address operated by Jeroen van veen (AS206092), geolocated to San Francisco, United States. As of October 7, 2026, IPDebrief rates it Low Risk (25/100); no anonymizing service was detected. - Canonical page: https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.251 - Last updated: 2026-10-07 ## Ownership - Organization: Jeroen van veen - Network name: VCUS-45-131-194-0 - Allocated block: 45.131.194.0/24 - ASN: AS206092 (https://ipdebrief.com/asn/206092) - Regional registry: ARIN ## Location - City: San Francisco - Region: California - Country: United States - Time zone: — ## Network classification - Infrastructure type: — - Datacenter / hosting: no - Residential: no - Mobile: no - Anycast: no - Tor exit node: no - VPN: no - Proxy: no ## Risk assessment - Assessment: Low Risk (25/100) - Blocklist listings: 0 - Suspicious activity indicators: no - Spam source: no ## Analyst narrative \# IP INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING: 45.131.194.251/32 **Classification:** LOW RISK / CLEAN **Report Date:** Current **Analyst:** SOC Intelligence Team \--- \## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IP address 45.131.194.251 is classified as **LOW RISK** with an overall risk score of 0. The endpoint demonstrates clean reputation across all threat feeds, shows no active services, and operates within a subnet with minimal abuse density (1.75%). No actionable threats detected; routine monitoring recommended. \--- \## OWNERSHIP & NETWORK ATTRIBUTES | Attribute | Value | |-----------|-------| | **ASN** | 206092 | | **Organization** | Jeroen van veen | | **Netname** | VCUS-45-131-194-0 | | **CIDR Block** | 45.131.194.0/24 | | **RIR** | ARIN | | **Geolocation** | US, WA, Seattle | | **Coordinates** | 47.75°N, -120.74°W | | **Timezone** | America/Los_Angeles | | **Service Purpose** | Firewalled / No Services | \--- \## THREAT ASSESSMENT \### Current Risk Profile \- **Overall Risk Score:** 0 (Low Risk) \- **Provider Score:** 0 \- **Authority Score:** 0 \- **Abuse Confidence:** Null \- **Blacklist Count:** 0 \- **Known Campaigns:** None \### Threat Indicators \- **Tor Exit Node:** No \- **Known Attacker:** No \- **Spam Source:** No \- **CDN/Proxy/VPN:** No \- **Hosting/Cloud:** No \- **Mobile/Residential:** No \--- \## NETWORK BEHAVIOR & SERVICES \- **Open Ports:** None detected \- **TLS Certificates:** None \- **HTTP Services:** None \- **DNS PTR Records:** None \- **Hosted Domains:** 0 \- **Email Auth (SPF/DMARC):** Not configured \- **Forward Resolution:** 0 hosts \--- \## SUBNET ANALYSIS (45.131.194.0/24) | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | **Total Siblings** | 57 | | **Active Siblings** | 20 | | **Threat Siblings** | 1 | | **Abuse Density** | 1.75% | | **Subnet Classification** | Clean | \### Risk Distribution in Subnet \- **High Risk:** 0 \- **Medium Risk:** 6 \- **Low Risk:** 50 **Key Neighbors of Interest:** \- 45.131.194.6 (Risk Score: 60, Authority: 50) \- Remaining 54 siblings: Risk Score 0-50 \--- \## OBSERVATION HISTORY **Total Observations:** 16 signals **Recent Activity (2026-07-24):** \- **04:07:47** – Network role classification (Confidence: 30%) \- **04:06:17** – Ownership stability check (Confidence: 85%) \- **04:05:46** – Geolocation inference (Confidence: 28%): US, Kansas region \- **04:05:02** – Subnet classification (Confidence: 75%): Clean, 1.75% abuse density \- **04:04:33** – Reputation assessment (Confidence: 85%): US, Seattle, reputation 0 **Temporal Indicators:** \- Ownership Changes: 0 \- Threat Persistence Days: 0 \- Threat Observation Count: 0 \- Persistently Malicious: No \--- \## RELATIONSHIP MAPPING **Detected Relationships:** 4 \- **Same Network:** VCUS-45-131-194-0 (all 4 relationships) No hostname, certificate, or organizational relationships identified beyond network scope. \--- \## CONTROL PLANE DATA \- **BGP Prefix:** 45.131.194.0/24 \- **Origin ASN:** 206092 \- **Route Stability:** False \- **MOAS Status:** No \- **RPKI State:** Not validated \- **IRR Consistency:** Not checked \- **DNSSEC Valid:** Yes \- **Operator Score:** 0.1304 (Minimal) \- **DNSBL Listed:** 0 (Total lists: 8) \--- \## CONTROLLED ACTION PLAN **Recommended Security Actions:** None **Firewall Rules:** Not required **WAF Rules:** Not required **Justification:** IP shows no malicious indicators, no open services, and clean reputation across all threat feeds. \--- \## SOC ANALYST NOTES Thinking Process: 1. **Analyze the Request:** * **User:** "Continue exactly where you left off. Do not repeat text already written. Finish the remaining answer only." * **Context:** The previous response was an IP Intelligence Briefing for 45.131.194.251/32. It ended with a section titled "SOC ANALYST NOTES" but didn't actually include any notes under that heading, and then stopped. * **Constraint:** The system instruction says "You are an IP intelligence analyst working for IPDebrief... Write in third person, past tense, using only the data returned by the tools. Do not speculate beyond what the data shows. Do not include disclaimers about being an AI." * **Goal:** Complete the briefing document by adding the "SOC ANALYST NOTES" section and any necessary concluding remarks based *only* on the data retrieved in the first turn. * **Tone:** Professional, factual, third-person, past tense. * **Data Source:** The JSON data returned from the tool calls in the first turn (Profile, History, Relationships, Neighbors). 2. **Review Available Data:** * **Profile:** Risk Score 0, Reputation Low Risk, Open Ports empty, DNS/Email Auth null, No Services. * **History:** 16 observations, recent dates 2026-07-24 (future dates relative to current real time, but consistent within the tool's context), signals indicate clean classification. * **Neighbors:** Subnet 45.131.194.251/24, Abuse Density 0.0175, 1 threat sibling (45.131.194.6 has Risk Score 60). * **Relationships:** Same network only. * **Control Plane:** Route stability false, DNSSEC valid, Operator score minimal. 3. **Drafting the Continuation:** * I need to finish the "SOC ANALYST NOTES" section. * I should add a "CONCLUSION" or "FINAL RECOMMENDATION" section if it feels like the briefing needs a formal close, though the previous section header was "SOC ANALYST NOTES". Actually, looking at the last line of the previous output: "## SOC ANALYST NOTES". It seems empty. * I should summarize the key takeaways for a SOC analyst based *strictly* on the data. * I should mention the one threat sibling in the neighborhood as context for monitoring the subnet, even if the target IP is clean. * I should mention the lack of reverse DNS/hostname resolution. * I should mention the stability issues (Route Stability: False) but keep it factual. 4. **Refining the Content (Adhering to Constraints):** * *Constraint Check:* "Do not speculate beyond what the data shows." -\> Do not say "it is safe to trust." Say "Data indicates low risk." * *Constraint Check:* "Write in third person, past tense." -\> "The IP resolved to...", "Analysis showed...", "Monitoring suggested...". * *Constraint Check:* "Do not repeat text already written." -\> Do not copy the Executive Summary or Ownership section again. 5. **Drafting the Content:** * Start with the "SOC ANALYST NOTES" section. * Add a "FINAL RECOMMENDATION" section to formally close the document. * Ensure no AI disclaimers. * Ensure the dates in the data (2026-07-24) are respected as the "current" context for the report, or just refer to them as observed timestamps. * Highlight the subnet risk (1 threat sibling). 6. **Final Polish:** * Check for flow with the previous section. * Ensure formatting matches (Markdown headers). *Self-Correction on "Past Tense":* The previous output ended with "## SOC ANALYST NOTES". I need to write the content under that header. The instructions say "Write in third person, past tense". * "Analysis indicated..." * "The IP demonstrated..." * "Reviewers noted..." *Data Check:* * Neighbor 45.131.194.6 has Risk Score 60. * Target IP Risk Score 0. * Route stability false. * DNSSEC valid. *Draft:* \## SOC ANALYST NOTES Analysis indicated the endpoint functioned as a passive network node with no active service banners returned during the scan window. The absence of reverse DNS records prevented hostname correlation. While the subnet classification remained clean, analysts noted one sibling address (45.131.194.6) registered with a risk score of 60, suggesting localized subnet activity warrants standard neighbor monitoring protocols. Route stability data returned false, indicating potential BGP churn, though the prefix remains assigned to origin ASN 206092. DNSSEC validation passed. \## FINAL RECOMMENDATION Routine passive monitoring advised. No firewall blocking required. Correlate subnet 45.131.194.0/24 with known infrastructure lists if broader campaign correlation is required. No immediate threat mitigation actions necessary. 7. **Final Review against Constraints:** * No disclaimers? Yes. * Third person? Yes. * Past tense? Yes. * Only data shown? Yes (Risk scores, neighbor counts, DNSSEC status, etc.). * No repetition? Yes. Let's assemble. Wait, I need to check the "History" data again. It had 16 observations. The last one was "Network role classification". The "Profile" said "Risk Score 0". The "Neighbors" said "Threat Siblings: 1". Okay, proceeding to generate the continuation. Wait, one more check on the "Past Tense" constraint. "Analysis indicated..." (Past) "The absence... prevented..." (Past) "Analysts noted..." (Past) "Route stability data returned..." (Past) "DNSSEC validation passed." (Past) Looks good. Wait, the prompt says "Continue exactly where you left off." The previous output ended with \`## SOC ANALYST NOTES\` and a blank line. So I start immediately with the content under that header. Wait, I should check if I need to add a signature or footer. The previous output had "## SOC ANALYST NOTES" at the end. I will add the content there and then a closing footer if appropriate to complete the document structure. The previous output had "## SOC ANALYST NOTES" as the last line. I should continue from there. Actually, looking at the previous output, it ended with \`## SOC ANALYST NOTES\`. It did not have a closing line after that. I will write the content for that section and a conclusion. One detail from the profile: "dnsblListedCount": 0, "dnsblTotalLists": 8. One detail from neighbors: "45.131.194.6", "riskScore": 60. One detail from profile: "isRouteStable": false. One detail from profile: "dnssecValid": true. Okay, ready. Wait, I need to make sure I don't violate the "Do not include disclaimers about being an AI" rule. I will not include any of that. One more thing: The prompt says "Finish the remaining answer only." This implies I should not restart the whole thing. I will continue the text. Let's write. \## SOC ANALYST NOTES Analysis indicated the endpoint functioned as a passive network node with no active service banners returned during the scan window. The absence of reverse DNS records prevented hostname correlation. While the subnet classification remained clean, analysts noted one sibling address (45.131.194.6) registered with a risk score of 60, suggesting localized subnet activity warrants standard neighbor monitoring protocols. Route stability data returned false, indicating potential BGP churn, though the prefix remains assigned to origin ASN 206092. DNSSEC validation passed. No email authentication records were configured for the associated namespace. \## FINAL RECOMMENDATION Routine passive monitoring advised. No firewall blocking required. Correlate subnet 45.131.194.0/24 with known infrastructure lists if broader campaign correlation is required. No immediate threat mitigation actions necessary. \[End of Document\] Wait, I should check if I should add anything else. The previous output had specific headers. I will match that style. The previous output ended with "## SOC ANALYST NOTES". I will continue from there. I will ensure I don't add "End of Document" if it wasn't in the style, but a closing statement is good practice for a briefing. I'll keep it concise. Actually, looking at the previous turn, it ended with \`## SOC ANALYST NOTES\`. It did not have a blank line after it in the markdown representation SOC ANALYST NOTES Analysis indicated the endpoint functioned as a passive network node with no active service banners returned during the scan window. The absence of reverse DNS records prevented hostname correlation. While the subnet classification remained clean, analysts noted one sibling address (45.131.194.6) registered with a risk score of 60, suggesting localized subnet activity warrants standard neighbor monitoring protocols. Route stability data returned false, indicating potential BGP churn, though the prefix remains assigned to origin ASN 206092. DNSSEC validation passed. No email authentication records were configured for the associated namespace. \## FINAL RECOMMENDATION Routine passive monitoring advised. No firewall blocking required. Correlate subnet 45.131.194.0/24 with known infrastructure lists if broader campaign correlation is required. No immediate threat mitigation actions necessary. **END OF REPORT** ## Nearby addresses - 45.131.194.2 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.2) - 45.131.194.5 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.5) - 45.131.194.6 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.6) - 45.131.194.8 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.8) - 45.131.194.11 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.11) - 45.131.194.14 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.14) - 45.131.194.15 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.15) - 45.131.194.16 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.16) - 45.131.194.18 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.18) - 45.131.194.19 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.19) - 45.131.194.22 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.22) - 45.131.194.25 (https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.25) --- Source: IPDebrief, "45.131.194.251 IP intelligence", https://ipdebrief.com/45.131.194.251, updated 2026-10-07. Assessments are probabilistic.