AbuseIPDB

United States · www.abuseipdb.com · 21 vendors

AbuseIPDB is a project dedicated to helping webmasters and system administrators report and identify IP addresses associated with malicious online activity. It serves as a central repository for reporting and checking abusive IPs, including those involved in spamming, hacking attempts, and DDoS attacks. The platform offers a free API to facilitate the reporting and verification of malicious IP addresses, aiming to enhance web safety.

Resilience scores

Technology vendors

Services catalogue

4 services in catalogue across 4 categories; runs on 21 sub-vendors.

Insights

Last updated 2026-08-15 · revision 2

21 direct vendors, 194 subvendors

Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Migration Readiness: 7/10

Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.

AbuseIPDB demonstrates a high level of migration readiness. The company's internal tech stack, featuring modern languages like PHP (Laravel), Node.js, and Python, coupled with a REST API architecture, is highly conducive to cloud migration and adoption of cloud-native patterns. The availability of SDKs for multiple programming languages (PHP, Node.js/TypeScript, Python, Go, Ruby, C#, Rust) further indicates a well-modularized and flexible system, reducing potential refactoring efforts during migration. A significant advantage is the absence of specified data residency requirements, which provides considerable flexibility in choosing cloud regions and architectures without complex compliance hurdles. While the 'Total Vendors: 0' data point is contradictory to the listed third-party services (IPinfo, Cloudflare) and vendor HQ countries, the geographic diversity of vendor HQs (5 unique countries) suggests a potentially manageable vendor landscape, and the modern tech stack implies less vendor lock-in to legacy systems. The primary challenges to achieving an even higher readiness score stem from the lack of data regarding financial stability (which could impact funding for a migration project) and the regulatory environment, which might introduce unforeseen compliance requirements. However, based on the available technical and data residency information, AbuseIPDB is well-positioned for a migration.

Compliance

6 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.

GDPR (source) — Partially Compliant

AbuseIPDB explicitly acknowledges GDPR applicability in its Privacy Policy and states it processes personal data of EU/EEA residents. However, several significant compliance gaps are evident: (1) All nine third-party data processors listed in the Privacy Policy (Google Analytics, Google Ads, Carbon/BuySellAds, PayPal/Braintree, DigitalOcean, Slack, Mailgun, Cloudflare, Freshworks) are marked as 'GDPR Compliance: In process' — meaning none have confirmed GDPR-compliant data transfer mechanisms in place as of the last policy update (March 2023); (2) Data is explicitly stored and processed outside the EEA, including in the United States, without confirmed adequacy decisions or Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for all processors; (3) No Data Protection Officer (DPO) is identified; (4) No formal GDPR audit or certification is disclosed. The combination of global user base, EU data subject processing, and unresolved third-party transfer compliance creates a high risk of regulatory enforcement action by EU supervisory authorities.

Evidence: https://www.abuseipdb.com/privacy, https://www.abuseipdb.com/legal

FTC Act Section 5 — Assessment Required

As a US-based company collecting and processing personal data, AbuseIPDB is subject to FTC jurisdiction under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices including misrepresentations about data privacy and security. The FTC has increasingly enforced data security and privacy representations. AbuseIPDB's Privacy Policy makes representations about data security and GDPR compliance that, if inaccurate, could expose the company to FTC enforcement. The 'in process' GDPR compliance status for all sub-processors, combined with public-facing GDPR compliance claims, could be viewed as a deceptive practice if not remediated. Risk is medium given AbuseIPDB's relatively small size and the FTC's typical focus on larger companies.

Evidence: https://www.abuseipdb.com/privacy

SOC 2 (source) — Assessment Required

AbuseIPDB provides cloud-based API services and a SaaS platform to paying enterprise and individual customers globally, making SOC 2 highly relevant as a trust and assurance framework. Enterprise customers increasingly require SOC 2 Type II reports from their vendors as part of third-party risk management. The absence of any public SOC 2 disclosure creates medium risk: AbuseIPDB may lose enterprise customers who require SOC 2 attestation, and without a SOC 2 report, there is no independent verification of its security, availability, and confidentiality controls. The company is small (managed by Marathon Studios), which may mean it has not yet invested in a SOC 2 audit, but this gap is a competitive and risk management concern.

Evidence: https://www.abuseipdb.com/privacy, https://www.abuseipdb.com/legal

Financials

Three-year financials

Financial Resilience Score: 6/10

AbuseIPDB operates a structurally attractive freemium SaaS/API model with unusually favorable unit economics: the core dataset is contributed for free by a large volunteer community, and key data inputs (GeoIP from IPinfo, DNS/WHOIS from SecurityTrails) are provided as in-kind sponsorships, minimizing data-licensing costs. Combined with tiered paid subscriptions (Basic, Premium, Enterprise) and deep integrations with widely used security tools (Fail2Ban, CSF, Suricata, Splunk, Fortinet, OpenCTI, Polarity), the service enjoys sticky enterprise customers and strong brand recognition in the sysadmin/security community built over roughly a decade of operation. However, resilience is materially constrained by the very small scale of the operator. Marathon Studios, Inc. appears to be a small owner-operated Pennsylvania private firm with no disclosed outside venture funding, meaning limited capital to defend against far better-capitalized competitors such as GreyNoise, Recorded Future, Cisco Talos, Spamhaus, AlienVault OTX, and Cloudflare. Key-person and infrastructure concentration risks are significant, and there is meaningful regulatory exposure (GDPR, CCPA, defamation) from publishing reputational scores about identifiable IPs. Because neither AbuseIPDB LLC nor Marathon Studios, Inc. files with the SEC and no revenue, EBIT, equity, or headcount figures are disclosed, external stakeholders cannot verify profitability or balance-sheet strength. The lack of transparency itself is a resilience gap for prospective enterprise buyers. On balance, the business appears likely self-sustaining and profitable given its low cost structure, but scale is unverifiable.

Key strengths: Low-cost, scalable SaaS/API model with community-sourced core dataset, Sticky product via integrations with Fail2Ban, CSF, Suricata, Splunk, Fortinet, OpenCTI, Polarity, In-kind data sponsorships from IPinfo and SecurityTrails reduce data-licensing costs, Cross-brand diversification within Marathon Studios (TickCheck, Marathon Commerce), Strong brand recognition in sysadmin/security community built over 10+ years, Tiered paid subscription pricing (Basic, Premium, Enterprise)

Risk factors: Very small private operator with key-person and concentration risk, Free-tier cannibalization and competition from open threat-intel feeds (Spamhaus, AlienVault OTX, Cloudflare, GreyNoise), No visible outside venture funding limits ability to invest against better-capitalized competitors, Regulatory/liability exposure from GDPR, CCPA, and defamation risk in publishing IP abuse scores, Infrastructure concentration and small ops team create outage and data-integrity risk, Zero financial transparency creates data gap for enterprise buyers and partners

Revenue by geography

Revenue by product/service

Workforce by country

Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.

View the full interactive report