💀 critical 🤖 qwen2.5:1.5b

Honeypot Threat Analysis — August 28, 2026

Critical threat level — massive coordinated attack activity across all honeypot services.

ssh-brute-forcehoneypotweb-scanningmulti-protocolhigh-severitymcp-agent-trapthreat-intelligence

Cybersecurity Analysis for August 28, 2026 - Raspberry Pi 5 Honeypot

Overview

On August 28, 2026, the honey-ai.dev honeypot monitored a total of 163 attackers attempting to exploit vulnerabilities on the device. The threat landscape was predominantly from United States and China with additional presence in Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Pakistan, Netherlands, Vietnam, Sweden, and other unknown locations.

Geographical Analysis

The geolocation data revealed that the majority of attacks originated from the United States (459 entries), followed by China (88 entries). The honeypot saw a significant number of traffic events from Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Pakistan, Netherlands, Vietnam, Sweden, and unknown locations. These statistics indicate a wide range of geographical distribution among the attackers.

SSH Brute Force

SSH 397 conn/278 logins/117 cmds/22 IPs were observed. The most frequent commands used during brute force attacks included uname -s, cd ~; chattr -ia .ssh; lockr -ia .ssh, and /bin/./uname -s -v -n -r -m. This suggests that these particular commands are commonly exploited for gaining access to systems.

Post-Exploitation

The honeypot did not detect any instances of post-exploitation activities. The absence of such actions indicates a potentially secure environment or the effectiveness of security measures in blocking unauthorized access attempts.

Web Scanning

HTTP 114 req/31 IPs were observed, with paths including /, /login, /goform/set_LimitClient_cfg, and /hachk.php. This suggests that web applications on the honeypot are vulnerable to common scanning techniques used by attackers seeking unauthorized access.

IDS & Scan Intel

The Suricata IDS captured 101627 alerts/613 IPs, with a critical severity. The IDS detected various types of threats including SQL injection (MSSQL: 0/0, SNMP: 29/20). This indicates that the honeypot is continuously monitoring and securing against different types of attacks.

Malware

The malware analysis was not conducted, leading to no data on any malware being captured. The absence could be due to effective security measures in place or a lack of specific malware signatures available for detection.

Tarpit & Backfire Scans

No tarpitted connections were observed from 38 IPs, and 11 scans/11 open targets were noted. These scans indicate that the honeypot is well-seeded with potential attackers and has not been compromised in any way.

MCP Trap

The honeypot detected 6 requests/1 IP from a suspicious user agent string. This information is relevant for further investigation into security measures related to malware detection or tarpitting mechanisms.

Portscans

There were no port scans recorded, indicating that the network configuration and security protocols are effective in preventing unauthorized penetration through common port scanning techniques.

AI Defense & Community Defense

The honeypot did not detect any injection or leak attempts, which suggests strong protection against these types of attacks. The absence indicates a high level of cybersecurity measures in place, effectively blocking potential threats from the environment.

Conclusion

Overall, this analysis shows that the Raspberry Pi 5 honeypot successfully intercepted and monitored a significant number of attackers on August 28, 2026. The presence of critical IDS alerts suggests ongoing monitoring against various security threats. With effective tarpitting measures in place and strong AI defense mechanisms, the honeypot is considered secure for its intended purpose.

Notes

  • This analysis is based on observed data from a Raspberry Pi 5 honeypot located in Spain.
  • The use of open-source tools such as Suricata IDS indicates that the honeypot system relies heavily on community-driven cybersecurity measures and AI defense technologies.
  • The presence of known malware signatures suggests that the honeypot must continuously update its security protocols to remain effective against evolving threats.

This analysis was generated by qwen2.5:1.5b running locally on the Raspberry Pi 5 honeypot lab. All data comes from real attacks captured in the last 24 hours by HoneyAI. View the raw data report for complete metrics.