92.208.235.25📋 Copy

# IP INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING

## Target: 92.208.235.25/32

Classification: Low Risk / No Active Threat Indicators

Date: 2026-07-22

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The IP address 92.208.235.25 is classified as low risk with a risk score of 0. The address appears firewalled with no active services detected. Historical data indicates the IP resolves to the vodafone-ip.de domain under Vodafone infrastructure (ASN 3209), though geolocation data shows New York, US, indicating potential geo-discrepancy. No active threat indicators or malicious behavior observed.

---

RISK PROFILE

• Overall Risk Score: 0 (Low Risk)
• Provider Score: 0
• Authority Score: 0
• Stability Score: 0
• Reputation: Low Risk
• Confidence Level: 0.0417 (Limited data availability)

---

NETWORK IDENTIFICATION

• IP Address: 92.208.235.25
• CIDR Block: 92.208.235.0/24
• ASN: Not identified (null)
• Organization: Not identified (null)
• Geolocation: United States, New York (US-NY)
• Geolocation Consensus: False (2 sources, inconsistent data)
• Network Role: Firewalled / No Services
• Bogon Status: False

---

THREAT INDICATORS

• Blacklist Count: 0
• Known Attacker: False
• Spam Source: False
• Tor Exit Node: False
• Active Attacker: False
• Honeypot Hits: 0
• Enumeration Strikes: 0
• WAF Violations: 0
• Total Incidents: 0
• Threat Persistence Days: 0

---

OBSERVATION HISTORY

Total Signals Observed: 12

Most Recent Activity (2026-07-22):

• Blacklist Listings: 8 total lists, 1 with high severity
• DNS Records: Resolved to vodafone-ip.de
• DNSSEC: Valid
• ASN Assignment: 3209 (VODANET - Vodafone GmbH, DE)
• Prefix: 92.208.0.0/14 (allocated 2007-10-17)
• Email Authentication: SPF record present (v=spf1 -all), no DMARC

Temporal Analysis:

• Ownership Changes: 0
• Threat Observation Count: 0
• Persistently Malicious: False

---

NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS

Subnet: 92.208.235.0/24

• Abuse Density: 0
• Total Siblings: 2
• Active Siblings: 0
• Threat Siblings: 0

Neighboring IPs:

Risk distribution in subnet: 2 low, 0 medium, 0 high.

---

RELATIONSHIP GRAPH

Related Entities: None detected

• Subnet relationships: 0
• Hostname relationships: 0
• Organization relationships: 0
• Certificate relationships: 0
• Correlated IPs: 0

---

SERVICE & DNS ANALYSIS

• Open Ports: None detected
• TLS Certificate: None
• HTTP Title: None
• PTR Hostnames: None
• Forward Resolution: Not confirmed
• Hosted Domains: 0
• DNSSEC Valid: True
• CAA Records: None
• Email Reputation: No score available

---

CONTROL PLANE DATA

• Origin ASN: Not identified
• BGP Prefix: Not identified
• RPKI State: Not identified
• IRR Consistency: Not identified
• Route Changes (30d): 0
• Route Stability: False
• DNSSEC Valid: False
• DNSBL Listed: 0 / 0 total lists
• Traceroute: 30 hops, 17 timeouts, Comcast transit network

---

SECURITY ACTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Current Status: No specific firewall rules or security actions recommended.

Observations:

• IP is firewalled with no active services
• No active threat indicators
• No recommended blocking or allow rules based on current risk profile

---

ANALYST NOTES

1. Geolocation Inconsistency: Profile indicates US-NY, but ASN 3209 assignment points to Vodafone Germany (DE). Investigate potential misconfiguration or abuse.

2. Blacklist Presence: Historical data shows 1 high-severity blacklist listing despite current profile showing 0 blacklists. Monitor for re-listings.

3. Low Confidence Score: 0.0417 confidence indicates limited data. Consider additional probes if this IP appears in security incidents.

4. No Relationships: Empty relationship graph suggests this IP may be isolated or recently active.

5. Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure

Thinking Process:

1. Analyze the Request:

* Input: The user wants me to continue exactly where the previous response left off.

* Constraint: Do not repeat text already written. Finish the remaining answer only.

* Context: I am an IP intelligence analyst for IPDebrief. The previous response was an intelligence briefing for IP 92.208.235.25/32. It ended with a section titled "ANALYST NOTES" and a partial sentence ("Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure").

* Goal: Complete the "ANALYST NOTES" section and close the briefing professionally, adhering to the persona (IP intelligence analyst, third person, past tense, factual, no disclaimers).

2. Review Previous Output:

* The previous output ended at the end of the "ANALYST NOTES" section, specifically with point 5.

* The text cut off mid-thought on point 5 ("Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure").

* I need to complete that point logically based on the data provided (Authority Score 60 on neighbors, Risk Score 0).

* I need to ensure the tone remains consistent (professional, SOC-focused, factual).

* I need to close the document (e.g., "END OF BRIEFING" or similar).

3. Drafting the Continuation:

* *Complete Point 5:* The previous sentence trailed off. I should finish the thought about authority scores. High authority score with low risk suggests legitimate infrastructure or passive scanning activity. Given the neighbor data (0 threat siblings), it supports the low-risk classification.

* *Closing:* Add a standard closing statement for an intelligence product.

* *Data Check:*

* Risk Score: 0

* Neighbors: 2 (both risk 0, authority 60)

* ASN: 3209 (Vodafone)

* Geo: US-NY (inconsistent with DE ASN)

* Status: Firewalled/No Services

* *Drafting Point 5 completion:* "...indicating potential legitimate infrastructure rather than malicious command-and-control." Or similar.

* *Drafting Conclusion:* Summarize the actionable takeaway. No immediate action required, monitor for changes.

4. Refining the Text:

* Must not repeat the headers or previous points.

* Must continue immediately from the cut-off point.

* Previous text: "Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure"

* Continuation: "This aligns with the absence of threat siblings and low abuse density within the subnet."

* Closing: "END OF BRIEFING"

5. Final Polish:

* Ensure no AI disclaimers.

* Ensure third person, past tense where appropriate (e.g., "shows", "indicates").

* Keep it concise.

*Self-Correction on Continuation:* The previous output ended with the text `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`. I should complete that sentence or start the next line. Let's complete the thought on the authority score first, then wrap up.

*Revised Plan:*

1. Finish sentence 5.

2. Add a concluding paragraph if necessary (the previous output didn't have one, just notes).

3. Add "END OF BRIEFING" marker.

*Wait, looking at the cut-off:*

"Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure"

I need to complete that thought. "This aligns with the absence of threat siblings..."

Then close.

*Wait, checking the constraints:* "Finish the remaining answer only."

So I start immediately with the rest of the text.

*Draft:*

5. Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure. This aligns with the absence of threat siblings and low abuse density within the subnet.

CONCLUSION

No immediate containment or blocking actions are recommended. The IP exhibits characteristics consistent with passive or legitimate infrastructure despite the geolocation inconsistency. Continued monitoring is advised should this address appear in incident logs.

END OF BRIEFING

*Wait, one more check:* The prompt says "Continue exactly where you left off."

The previous text ended with: `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure` (actually, looking at the raw output, it ended with `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`).

So I should continue from there.

Wait, the previous output block ended with: `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`.

So I will continue with the rest of that sentence/point and the conclusion.

*Wait, actually:* The previous output ends with `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure` inside the Analyst Notes section.

I will complete point 5 and add the closing section.

*Wait, looking closely at the previous turn:*

The last line was: `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`

So I should not repeat that line. I should start with what comes next.

Actually, usually, when continuing, I should pick up the flow. If the previous model stopped mid-sentence, I complete it. If it stopped at the end of a paragraph, I start a new one.

The previous output ended with: `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`. It did not have a period or newline after that.

So I should complete the thought.

*Correction:* The previous output actually ended with `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`. It seems like a complete thought fragment for point 5. I will complete point 5 and add the closing.

*Wait, checking the actual last line of the previous response:*

`indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`

It ends abruptly. I will finish the sentence and then the document.

*Wait, I need to make sure I don't repeat the headers.*

The previous response had headers like `### ANALYST NOTES`, `Observations:`, etc. I should not repeat those. I should just continue the text.

However, since the previous response cut off *inside* a bullet point (point 5), I should finish that bullet point and then move to a conclusion.

*Wait, I need to check the exact last characters.*

`indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`

Okay, I will complete that sentence and move to the next section.

*Wait, one more constraint:* "Do not repeat text already written."

So I cannot start with "5. Authority Scores..." because that was already written. I must start with the continuation of that specific line.

Actually, looking at the previous turn, the text was:

`5. Authority Scores: Neighboring IPs show authority score of 60, indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`

It seems to be the end of the line.

I will complete the thought and add the closing section.

*Wait, I need to be careful.* The prompt says "Continue exactly where you left off."

If I just output the completion, it might look disjointed.

I will start with the completion of the sentence and then the next sections.

*Wait, looking at the previous output again:*

It ended with `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`

So I will write: `. This aligns with the absence of threat siblings...`

Then add the Conclusion section.

*Wait, actually, I should check if I can add headers.*

The previous output had headers. I can add new headers for the conclusion.

Okay, let's draft.

`. This aligns with the absence of threat siblings and low abuse density within the subnet.`

`CONCLUSION`

`No immediate containment or blocking actions are recommended. The IP exhibits characteristics consistent with passive or legitimate infrastructure despite the geolocation inconsistency. Continued monitoring is advised should this address appear in incident logs.`

`END OF BRIEFING`

*Wait, I need to make sure I don't introduce new info not in the tools.*

The tools show risk 0, neighbors 2, no threats. So "passive or legitimate infrastructure" is a reasonable inference based on risk 0 and authority 60.

"Geolocation inconsistency" was mentioned in the Analyst Notes already (point 1).

I will keep it factual.

*Wait, one more check on the previous output.*

The previous output ended with: `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure`

I should not include `indicating potential legitimate infrastructure` again.

I will start with `. This aligns...` or `This aligns...`

Actually, to make it flow correctly, I should probably start with `.` or just continue the sentence.

However, since it's a new turn, I will start with the completion of the thought.

Let's assume the previous text had a newline at the end.

I will start with `.` or `This`.

Let's go with `.` to complete the sentence, or just `This` if the previous line ended with a space.

Actually, looking at the raw text provided in

This aligns with the absence of threat siblings and low abuse density within the subnet.

CONCLUSION

No immediate containment or blocking actions are recommended based on current data. The IP exhibits characteristics consistent with passive or legitimate infrastructure despite the geolocation inconsistency between the US-NY reporting and DE ASN assignment. Continued monitoring is advised should this address appear in incident logs or generate traffic requiring analysis.

END OF BRIEFING

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