IPure IP purity check

IP purity report

144.48.39.110

16/ 100

Very high risk

confidence: high

Reputation is burned; almost every platform will block it.

Based on signals observed from public and partner data sources at 2026-09-24 12:37 UTC. This describes IP-level risk only; platforms' internal risk data is not visible to us.

Profile

What this IP is

Country / region
Australia · Queensland · Brisbane
IP type
Hosting / data center
Native / broadcast
Native IP
Network
AS136557 Abuse Please contact [email protected]
Reverse DNS
none
Devices seen in subnet
66

Suitability

What it is good for

Each use case weighs the evidence differently; these are not one overall score.

AI services

ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini

0

Best avoided

Main issue: IP type: Hosting / data center

Least tolerant of data center and proxy exits: more likely to get degraded service, verification prompts or account limits. Spam history does not matter here

Social sign-up

X · Discord · Telegram · Reddit

0

Best avoided

Main issue: IP type: Hosting / data center

Sign-up is the strictest checkpoint: data center / proxy exits are more likely to be asked for phone verification or refused, and IPs with bulk-registration history are blocked far more often

Streaming / short video

TikTok · Netflix · YouTube

4

Best avoided

Main issue: Known VPN exit

Native IP and low sharing matter most: a broadcast IP reads as a region mismatch, and shared exits get throttled

Gaming platforms

Steam · PSN · Epic · Nintendo

7

Best avoided

Main issue: IP type: Hosting / data center

Region locks, regional pricing and gifting all follow the IP's location, so broadcast IPs tend to be treated as cross-region; data center exits carry a high risk of restrictions

Cross-border e-commerce

Amazon · eBay · Shopee

0

Best avoided

Main issue: IP type: Hosting / data center

Linked-account store closures are driven first by shared IPs, and only then by data center ranges

Email sending

SMTP · marketing email

0

Best avoided

Main issue: Abuse reports (abuseipdb)

Blocklists make or break deliverability, while sending from a data center IP is normal and is not penalised

Evidence

Why it got this score

  • −25

    IP type: Hosting / data center

    Hosting / data center IPs are the main source of automated traffic

  • −20

    Known VPN exit

    Only 1 data source flags it as a VPN; the evidence is limited, so it counts at half weight; operator: NordVPN

  • −18

    Abuse reports (abuseipdb)

    Confidence 35%, 32 reports in the last 90 days

  • −12

    Blocklist hit: s5h.net

    Listed by s5h.net

  • −6

    4 open ports

    Open ports: 1443, 4000, 7443, 8443

  • −5

    No rDNS record

    No PTR record; IPs allocated by established carriers usually have one

  • −3

    Shared exit

    66 devices observed in the same subnet

  • +5

    Native IP

    Registered and used in the same country, allocated directly by a local carrier

Reputation

Blocklists and abuse history

Listed on 1 of 8 blocklists checked: s5h.net.

  • abuseipdb abuse confidence 35%, 32 reports in 90 days

Open ports observed: 1443, 4000, 7443, 8443

Limits

What an IP check cannot tell you

Each platform's internal risk labels
Platforms keep their own IP reputation data and ban records and do not publish them. No hit in public sources does not mean a platform has nothing on this IP.
Whether the IP is truly exclusive
Sharing is only the number of devices observed in the same subnet. It cannot show who else is using this exit right now, or what they are doing.
Which accounts this IP has been tied to
Account-to-IP links exist only inside each platform. Accounts previously banned on this IP are invisible to us.
Device, browser and behaviour
Risk systems look at IP + device fingerprint + behavioural rhythm together. A clean IP with an odd fingerprint or behaviour still gets blocked.
Whether the account profile matches the IP
When sign-up country, phone number, payment method, language or time zone disagree with the IP's location, platforms verify further. That is unrelated to IP purity.

Sources

Data sources and responses

  • rdap
    446ms
  • team-cymru
    80ms
  • ip-api.com
    68ms
  • proxycheck.io
    189ms
  • abuseipdb
    290ms
  • cloud-ranges
    9ms
  • tor-exits
    9ms
  • rdns
    225ms
  • shodan-internetdb
    196ms
  • ipwho.is
    159ms
  • dnsbl
    251ms

Machine-readable versions of this report: JSON · plain text · 中文报告