IPure IP purity check

IP purity report

64.253.120.178

91/ 100

Clean

confidence: high

Good reputation; at the IP level it rarely draws extra verification.

Based on signals observed from public and partner data sources at 2026-09-29 06:26 UTC. This describes IP-level risk only; platforms' internal risk data is not visible to us.

Profile

What this IP is

Country / region
United States · Kentucky · Louisville
IP type
Residential
Native / broadcast
Native IP
Network
AS4364 IgLou Internet Services
Reverse DNS
a120-178.iglou.com
Devices seen in subnet
4

Suitability

What it is good for

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

AI services

ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini

90

Excellent fit

No notable obstacle found for this use case

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

86

Excellent fit

No notable obstacle found for this use case

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

92

Excellent fit

No notable obstacle found for this use case

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

92

Excellent fit

No notable obstacle found for this use case

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

98

Excellent fit

No notable obstacle found for this use case

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

Email sending

SMTP · marketing email

85

Excellent fit

No notable obstacle found for this use case

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

Evidence

Why it got this score

  • −15

    Proxy IP

    Only 1 data source flags it as a proxy; the evidence is limited, so it counts at half weight

    What it means
    A source marks this address as a proxy exit without saying whether it is a VPN, a datacenter proxy or something else.
    Which uses care
    Cares most: AI services, Social sign-up, Streaming / short video, Gaming platforms, Cross-border e-commerce
    Why it is weighted this way
    Only one source says so, so it counts at half weight.
    Can it be fixed
    These labels are usually applied to whole ranges and are hard to clear by behaviour; moving to an unlabeled range is the practical fix.
  • −6

    8 open ports

    Open ports: 1701, 10000, 10001, 10004, 11000, 12000, 12500, 12502

    What it means
    Scanners see ports open on this IP. With admin ports such as 22 or 3389 it is almost certainly a server, not a home router.
    Which uses care
    Barely looks at it: AI services
    Why it is weighted this way
    Mainly corroboration that "this is a server", which the datacenter item already charged for, so only a few points here; AI-type scenarios weight it at 0.3 to avoid charging the same fact three times.
    Can it be fixed
    Close or restrict ports that do not need public access (firewall, non-default port, fail2ban); scanners update within days, then re-check. One of the few items you can change yourself.
  • −5

    7 known vulnerabilities

    Mostly matched from software version banners; it shows the machine is unmaintained, and platform risk systems do not look at this directly: CVE-2025-62168, CVE-2026-50012, CVE-2026-32748 and more

    What it means
    Scanners matched the version banners of exposed services to published CVE numbers. Most are just version matches, not confirmed exploitable holes.
    Which uses care
    Barely looks at it: AI services
    Why it is weighted this way
    It shows the machine is unmaintained, another sign of "server"; platform risk systems never count CVEs on an IP. Capped at 8 points (20 before 2026-09-26, which pushed ordinary VPS into "very high risk" for one fact charged three times).
    Can it be fixed
    Update the system and the services exposed to the internet (sshd above all); scanners update within days, then re-check.
  • +4

    Very low observed sharing

    Only 4 devices observed in the same subnet

    What it means
    Only a few devices were observed in the same subnet. Your behaviour mostly represents you alone.
    Which uses care
    Cares most: Social sign-up, Streaming / short video, Cross-border e-commerce
    Why it is weighted this way
    A small bonus. This is an observation, not proof of true exclusivity.
    Can it be fixed
    An inherent attribute of the IP or its range; nothing a user can change short of a different IP.
  • +5

    Native IP

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

    What it means
    Registered and used in the same country, allocated directly by a local carrier: a "native IP".
    Which uses care
    Cares most: Streaming / short video, Gaming platforms; Barely looks at it: Email sending
    Why it is weighted this way
    A bonus: region-based checks will not trip.
    Can it be fixed
    An inherent attribute of the IP or its range; nothing a user can change short of a different IP.
  • +8

    IP type: Residential

    Residential broadband is the IP type risk systems trust most

    What it means
    A residential, mobile, education or government network address: the kind of source risk systems trust most.
    Which uses care
    Cares most: AI services, Social sign-up, Gaming platforms, Cross-border e-commerce; Barely looks at it: Email sending
    Why it is weighted this way
    A bonus: the vast majority of real people come from these networks, so the default stance is to let them through.
    Can it be fixed
    An inherent attribute of the IP or its range; nothing a user can change short of a different IP.

Reputation

Blocklists and abuse history

Not listed on any of the 8 blocklists checked (Spamhaus ZEN, SpamCop, PSBL, blocklist.de, UCEPROTECT L1, s5h.net, DroneBL, SpamRats).

  • abuseipdb abuse confidence 0%

Open ports observed: 1701, 10000, 10001, 10004, 11000, 12000, 12500, 12502

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
    242ms
  • team-cymru
    70ms
  • ip-api.com
    68ms
  • proxycheck.io
    141ms
  • abuseipdb
    199ms
  • cloud-ranges
    9ms
  • tor-exits
    9ms
  • rdns
    563ms
  • shodan-internetdb
    160ms
  • ipwho.is
    73ms
  • dnsbl
    247ms

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