IPure IP purity check

IP purity report

82.23.33.0

62/ 100

Suspicious

confidence: high

Mediocre reputation; not recommended for long-term use with important accounts.

Based on signals observed from public and partner data sources at 2026-09-21 16:26 UTC. This describes IP-level risk only; platforms' internal risk data is not visible to us.

Profile

What this IP is

Country / region
Brazil · São Paulo · São Paulo
IP type
Hosting / data center
Native / broadcast
Native IP
Network
AS262287 Private Customer
Reverse DNS
none
Devices seen in subnet
9

Suitability

What it is good for

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

AI services

ChatGPT · Claude · Gemini

22

Unusable

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

24

Unusable

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

43

Not recommended

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

37

Not recommended

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

41

Not recommended

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

70

Good fit

Main issue: Known VPN exit

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

  • −5

    No rDNS record

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

  • +3

    No open ports

    Network scans have not observed any open service on this IP

  • +4

    Very low observed sharing

    Only 9 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

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%

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
    408ms
  • team-cymru
    91ms
  • ip-api.com
    123ms
  • proxycheck.io
    259ms
  • abuseipdb
    261ms
  • cloud-ranges
    21ms
  • tor-exits
    21ms
  • rdns
    305ms
  • shodan-internetdb
    248ms
  • ipwho.is
    163ms
  • dnsbl
    210ms

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