ECCouncil 312-50v13 Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13) Exam Practice Test

In CEH v13 Module 11: Hacking Wireless Networks, WPS (Wi-Fi Protected Setup) is discussed as a vulnerable configuration that can be exploited using tools like Reaver and wash.

wash is a command-line utility used to detect WPS-enabled Access Points.

It provides information about:

Whether WPS is enabled or locked.

Signal strength, BSSID, channel, etc.

Very useful before attempting WPS PIN attacks.

Option Clarifications:

B. ntptrace: Used for querying NTP servers, not wireless networks.

C. macof: Part of dsniff suite; floods network with MAC addresses (DoS tool).

D. net view: Windows command for listing network shares, not for wireless or WPS.

Correct answer is A. wash.

CEH methodology stresses prioritization based on risk, exploitability, and business impact. High-severity vulnerabilities—especially those related to outdated or unsupported server software—are frequently associated with known, publicly documented exploits. The proper next step after identifying such vulnerabilities is to confirm exploitability safely, typically by researching available exploit code, validating version-specific weaknesses, and determining whether the vulnerability can be successfully leveraged under the defined scope of engagement. CEH highlights that exploitation attempts must be evidence-driven, not arbitrary, and focusing on high-risk vulnerabilities allows testers to demonstrate meaningful security impacts. Brute-forcing (Option A) is unnecessary and high-noise. Ignoring or deprioritizing the high-risk finding (Options B and C) contradicts CEH risk-based assessment principles. Therefore, verifying exploitability of the high-risk vulnerability is the correct step.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The attack shown is a Directory Traversal Attack. It uses URL encoding (hexadecimal obfuscation) to bypass input filters and access unauthorized files such as /etc/passwd.

%2e = . (dot)

%2f = / (forward slash)

So, ../../../etc/passwd becomes %2e%2e%2f%2e%2e%2f%2e%2e%2f%65%74%63%2f%70%61%73%73%77%64

The best protection against this attack is to:

Normalize and sanitize user input on the server.

Deny directory traversal patterns, whether encoded or not.

Specifically reject or deny hex-encoded path characters (%2e, %2f, etc.)

Option A directly mitigates this by preventing the server from decoding and processing hex-encoded directory traversal attempts.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 10: Web Application Hacking

Topic: Directory Traversal and Input Validation

Incorrect Options:

B: IDS can alert, but it’s reactive rather than preventative.

C: SSL encrypts communication but does not prevent path traversal.

D: Active script detection is unrelated to path traversal attacks.

A hybrid attack combines the benefits of both dictionary and brute-force attacks. It takes words from a dictionary and applies modifications such as:

Appending or prepending numbers or symbols

Changing case (e.g., admin → Admin1!)

Leetspeak substitutions (e.g., p@ssw0rd)

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Topic: Password Cracking Methods

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A hybrid attack is a combination of dictionary and brute-force techniques. It takes dictionary words and mutates them to cover common variations, making it more effective than pure dictionary attacks.”

Incorrect Options:

A/B/D: These are not standard terminology in cryptographic or password auditing literature.

This scenario demonstrates a classic social engineering tactic often referred to as “social media quizzes” or “engagement bait”, commonly used in open-source intelligence gathering (OSINT) and pretexting attacks.

From CEH v13 Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking and Module 09: Social Engineering, attackers may create seemingly innocent posts that ask users to share answers to common questions like:

What was your first pet’s name?

What’s your mother’s maiden name?

What city were you born in?

What’s your favorite food?

These questions mirror the types of security questions used by banks and other services for account recovery or authentication. By answering these in public forums or comments, users unknowingly disclose data that can be used to:

Bypass security questions

Reset passwords

Perform targeted account takeovers

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B. Matt's bank account login information was brute forced.

Unlikely. Most banks implement account lockout policies and multi-factor authentication that would prevent brute force attempts.

C. Matt inadvertently provided his password when responding to the post.

Incorrect. Passwords are not usually asked in public-facing posts. Users are unlikely to provide literal passwords unless heavily tricked by phishing.

D. Matt's computer was infected with a keylogger.

Possible but less likely. The context suggests that the only suspicious behavior was responding to the Facebook post, which doesn't imply malware installation or downloading.

Reference from CEH v13 Study Guide and Course Material:

CEH v13 Official Module 09 – Social Engineering, Slide: Common Social Engineering Techniques (Quizzes, Pretexting)

CEH Engage – Social Engineering Phase

EC-Council iLabs – Performing Social Engineering Attacks Simulation

CEH v13 Courseware Notes – Reconnaissance Using OSINT and Public Social Platforms

SSL/TLS uses a hybrid cryptographic approach:

Asymmetric cryptography is used during the handshake phase to securely exchange symmetric session keys over an insecure network.

After the key exchange, symmetric encryption (e.g., AES) is used for the bulk of data transfer due to its high performance and lower overhead.

This approach balances security and efficiency by leveraging asymmetric encryption for secure key exchange and symmetric encryption for speed.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography

Section: SSL/TLS

Quote:

“SSL/TLS uses asymmetric cryptography to negotiate keys and symmetric cryptography to encrypt data. This combination ensures secure, fast, and reliable communication.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Not relevant — all devices follow the protocol regardless of capability.

B. There is no failover mechanism as described.

C. Session keys are exchanged during the handshake, not out-of-band.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Tshark is the command-line version of Wireshark. The correct syntax for filtering packets from a subnet:

sudo tshark -f "net 192.168.8.0/24"

This captures only the traffic from that IP range. It’s ideal for cron jobs and automated monitoring.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing → Tshark and Wireshark Usage

Once a suitable zombie has been found, performing a scan is easy. Simply specify the zombie hostname to the -sI option and Nmap does the rest. Example 5.19 shows an example of Ereet scanning the Recording Industry Association of America by bouncing an idle scan off an Adobe machine named Kiosk.

Example 5.19. An idle scan against the RIAA

# nmap -Pn -p- -sI kiosk.adobe.com www.riaa.com

Starting Nmap ( http://nmap.org )

Idlescan using zombie kiosk.adobe.com (192.150.13.111:80); Class: Incremental

Nmap scan report for 208.225.90.120

(The 65522 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)

Port       State       Service

21/tcp     open        ftp

25/tcp     open        smtp

80/tcp     open        http

111/tcp    open        sunrpc

135/tcp    open        loc-srv

443/tcp    open        https

1027/tcp   open        IIS

1030/tcp   open        iad1

2306/tcp   open        unknown

5631/tcp   open        pcanywheredata

7937/tcp   open        unknown

7938/tcp   open        unknown

36890/tcp  open        unknown

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2594.47 seconds

The given rule syntax is consistent with Snort, a popular open-source Intrusion Detection System (IDS). This rule alerts when any TCP traffic from any source IP and port is sent to IPs within the 192.168.100.0/24 subnet on port 21 (FTP), triggering the alert message: “FTP on the network!”

The Snort rule format is:

alert protocol source_IP source_port -> destination_IP destination_port (rule_options)

CEH v13 course materials teach this rule format under IDS/IPS configuration.

From CEH v13 Guide:

“Snort rules are used in IDS/IPS to define suspicious traffic patterns. An example rule: alert tcp any any -> 192.168.1.0/24 21 (msg: 'FTP detected') triggers an alert on FTP traffic within a subnet.”

Incorrect Options:

A/C. IP tables are used in firewalls and routers but follow a completely different syntax.

B. FTP servers do not use such alerting rules.

Reference – CEH v13 Study Guide:

Module 12: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots

Section: Snort IDS Configuration

=

ARP spoofing–based session hijacking is identified in CEH v13 Web Application and Network Attacks as one of the most stealthy and difficult-to-detect session compromise techniques, especially within internal or VPN-connected networks.

In ARP spoofing, attackers poison ARP caches to position themselves as a man-in-the-middle (MitM). Once in place, they can silently intercept, modify, or replay session data—even when encryption is used—by redirecting traffic transparently between endpoints.

Option A (sidejacking) is mitigated by HTTPS. Option C (session guessing) is noisy and detectable. Option D (cookie poisoning) relies on weak validation and is easier to detect via integrity checks.

CEH v13 highlights ARP spoofing as particularly dangerous because:

It exploits trusted local network behavior

It does not require breaking encryption directly

It is often invisible to users and applications

Therefore, Option B is the most challenging to detect and mitigate and is the correct answer.

Insecure communication is defined in CEH’s mobile and IoT security modules as the failure to encrypt sensitive data transmitted between a device and a server. When applications use plain HTTP instead of HTTPS, all traffic—including authentication tokens, user identifiers, and session data—can be monitored and altered by an attacker through network sniffing or man-in-the-middle attacks. CEH emphasizes that insecure transport channels represent one of the most common and critical weaknesses in mobile ecosystems, allowing attackers to harvest credentials or inject malicious commands. Security misconfiguration refers to improper server settings, while SSL pinning issues involve certificate validation bypassing. Insufficient input validation pertains to application-side data validation. None of these align as directly as insecure communication, which precisely describes the unencrypted data exposure.

Developed by Robert “RSnake” Hansen, Slowloris is DDoS attack software that permits one computer to require down an internet server. Due the straightforward yet elegant nature of this attack, it requires minimal bandwidth to implement and affects the target server’s web server only, with almost no side effects on other services and ports.

Slowloris has proven highly-effective against many popular sorts of web server software, including Apache 1.x and 2.x.

Over the years, Slowloris has been credited with variety of high-profile server takedowns. Notably, it had been used extensively by Iranian ‘hackivists’ following the 2009 Iranian presidential election to attack Iranian government internet sites .

Slowloris works by opening multiple connections to the targeted web server and keeping them open as long as possible. It does this by continuously sending partial HTTP requests, none of which are ever completed. The attacked servers open more and connections open, expecting each of the attack requests to be completed.

Periodically, the Slowloris sends subsequent HTTP headers for every request, but never actually completes the request. Ultimately, the targeted server’s maximum concurrent connection pool is filled, and extra (legitimate) connection attempts are denied.

By sending partial, as against malformed, packets, Slowloris can easily elapse traditional Intrusion Detection systems.

Named after a kind of slow-moving Asian primate, Slowloris really does win the race by moving slowly and steadily. A Slowloris attack must await sockets to be released by legitimate requests before consuming them one by one.

For a high-volume internet site , this will take a while . the method are often further slowed if legitimate sessions are reinitiated. But within the end, if the attack is unmitigated, Slowloris—like the tortoise—wins the race.

If undetected or unmitigated, Slowloris attacks also can last for long periods of your time . When attacked sockets outing , Slowloris simply reinitiates the connections, continuing to reach the online server until mitigated.

Designed for stealth also as efficacy, Slowloris are often modified to send different host headers within the event that a virtual host is targeted, and logs are stored separately for every virtual host.

More importantly, within the course of an attack, Slowloris are often set to suppress log file creation. this suggests the attack can catch unmonitored servers off-guard, with none red flags appearing in log file entries.

Methods of mitigation

Imperva’s security services are enabled by reverse proxy technology, used for inspection of all incoming requests on their thanks to the clients’ servers.

Imperva’s secured proxy won’t forward any partial connection requests—rendering all Slowloris DDoS attack attempts completely and utterly useless.

In CEH v13 Cloud Computing, multi-tenancy is a core cloud characteristic—but also a major risk if isolation controls are weak. When one tenant’s actions affect others, the issue is almost always insufficient isolation between tenants.

Multi-tenant isolation ensures that compute, storage, memory, and network resources are strictly separated. Without proper isolation, a malicious tenant can:

Exhaust shared resources

Access neighboring virtual machines

Damage the provider’s reputation

Encryption and authentication protect data access but do not stop cross-tenant impact. Logging helps detect incidents but does not prevent them.

CEH v13 emphasizes strong logical isolation mechanisms—such as hypervisor hardening and tenant segmentation—as essential cloud security controls. Therefore, Option C is the correct answer.

IoT devices that transmit data without encryption expose all communication to interception. CEH explains that attackers can position themselves between the IoT device and cloud service to manipulate or capture traffic. A MitM attack enables interception of commands, credentials, and firmware data due to the absence of TLS protections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network

In IP networking, a private network is a computer network that uses private IP address space. Both the IPv4 and the IPv6 specifications define private IP address ranges. These addresses are commonly used for local area networks (LANs) in residential, office, and enterprise environments.

Private network addresses are not allocated to any specific organization. Anyone may use these addresses without approval from regional or local Internet registries. Private IP address spaces were originally defined to assist in delaying IPv4 address exhaustion. IP packets originating from or addressed to a private IP address cannot be routed through the public Internet.

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has directed the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to reserve the following IPv4 address ranges for private networks:

· 10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255

· 172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255

· 192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255

Backbone routers do not allow packets from or to internal IP addresses. That is, intranet machines, if no measures are taken, are isolated from the Internet. However, several technologies allow such machines to connect to the Internet.

· Mediation servers like IRC, Usenet, SMTP and Proxy server

· Network address translation (NAT)

· Tunneling protocol

NOTE: So, the problem is just one of these technologies.

CEH v13 details the standard penetration testing workflow, where confirmed critical vulnerabilities—especially those affecting core systems like database servers—should be prioritized for exploitation only after verification and when explicitly permitted by the rules of engagement. Exploiting a known vulnerability using vetted tools (e.g., Metasploit, CVE-specific exploits) provides evidence of real-world risk and validates the severity rating. Brute-forcing logins (Option B) is inefficient and often outside scope. Ignoring a critical vulnerability (Option C) violates CEH’s prioritization guidelines. A DoS attack (Option D) is never appropriate unless the engagement explicitly authorizes destructive testing, which is rare. CEH stresses that high-impact vulnerabilities should be exploited to demonstrate business risk, privilege escalation potential, data exposure, or lateral movement possibilities—making Option A fully aligned with CEH methodology.

This question is about web link enumeration using Linux CLI tools — a common initial step during information gathering in penetration testing, covered in CEH v13 Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance.

Objective:

Extract all hyperlinks (i.e., ) from the homepage of a target site to collect subpages, links, or external URLs.

Let’s analyze each component of Option B:

=

=

curl -s <a href="https://site.com">https://site.com | grep '

curl -s <a href="https://site.com:">https://site.com: Silently fetches the HTML source of the main page.

grep '

grep "site.com": Further filters those that point to site.com.

cut -d "v" -f 2: Cuts the line based on the delimiter v to isolate part of the URL — though not perfect, it attempts to extract the visible link.

While not perfectly formed (due to slightly inconsistent quote usage), Option B demonstrates the correct logic chain for web link enumeration using pipes in Linux: fetching, filtering, and extracting.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. dirb <a href="https://site.com">https://site.com | grep "site"

❌ dirb is used for brute-forcing directories, not grabbing links from HTML.

C. wget https://site.com | grep "

❌ Incorrect. wget will download the entire content (including binary files by default), and piping it directly to grep without -O - or -q -O - makes it ineffective.

D. wget <a href="https://site.com">https://site.com | cut -d "http"

❌ Incorrect. Syntax error (cut -d"http" is invalid without correct delimiter formatting), and again wget needs to be directed to stdout using -O -.

Corrected Optimal Syntax for Real-World Use:

bash

CopyEdit

curl -s https://site.com | grep -oP 'href="\Khttp[^"]+' | grep "site.com"

This uses -oP with Perl-compatible regex to extract only URLs and is a method recommended in CEH iLabs and demonstrations.

Reference from CEH v13 Study Materials:

Module 02 – Footprinting and Reconnaissance, Section: Website Footprinting and Web Crawling

CEH iLabs – Website Information Gathering Lab

CEH Engage Range: Passive and Active Footprinting Phase – Linux Scripting Tasks

A digital signature mechanism is a cryptographic concept that you should propose to the team to verify the integrity of the data upon retrieval. A digital signature mechanism works as follows:

A digital signature is a mathematical scheme that allows the sender of a message to sign the message with their private key, and allows the receiver of the message to verify the signature with the sender’s public key. A digital signature provides two security services: authentication and non-repudiation. Authentication means that the receiver can confirm the identity of the sender, and non-repudiation means that the sender cannot deny sending the message12.

A digital signature mechanism consists of three algorithms: key generation, signing, and verification. Key generation produces a pair of keys: a private key for the sender and a public key for the receiver. Signing takes the message and the private key as inputs, and outputs a signature. Verification takes the message, the signature, and the public key as inputs, and outputs a boolean value indicating whether the signature is valid or not12.

A digital signature mechanism can be implemented using various cryptographic techniques, such as hash-based signatures, RSA signatures, or elliptic curve signatures. A common method is to use a hash function to compress the message into a fixed-length digest, and then use an asymmetric encryption algorithm to encrypt the digest with the private key. The encrypted digest is the signature, which can be decrypted with the public key and compared with the hash of the message to verify the integrity12.

A digital signature mechanism can ensure the integrity of the data upon retrieval, because:

A digital signature is unique to the message and the sender, and it cannot be forged or altered by anyone else. If the message or the signature is modified in any way, the verification will fail and the receiver will know that the data is corrupted or tampered with12.

A digital signature is independent of the encryption or hashing of the data, and it can be applied to any type of data, regardless of its format or size. The encryption or hashing of the data can provide confidentiality and efficiency, but they cannot provide integrity or authentication by themselves. A digital signature can complement the encryption or hashing of the data by providing an additional layer of security12.

The other options are not as suitable as option B for the following reasons:

A. Implement a block cipher mode of operation: This option is not relevant because it does not address the integrity verification issue, but the encryption issue. A block cipher mode of operation is a method of applying a block cipher, which is a symmetric encryption algorithm that operates on fixed-length blocks of data, to a variable-length message. A block cipher mode of operation can provide different security properties, such as confidentiality, integrity, or authenticity, depending on the mode. However, a block cipher mode of operation cannot provide a digital signature, which is a form of asymmetric encryption that uses a pair of keys3 .

C. Suggest using salt with hashing: This option is not sufficient because it does not provide a digital signature, but only a hash value. Salt is a random value that is added to the input of a hash function, which is a one-way function that maps any data to a fixed-length digest. Salt can enhance the security of hashing by making it harder to perform brute-force attacks or dictionary attacks, which are methods of finding the input that produces a given hash value. However, salt cannot provide a digital signature, which is a two-way function that uses a pair of keys to sign and verify a message .

D. Switch to elliptic curve cryptography: This option is not specific because it does not specify a digital signature mechanism, but only a type of cryptography. Elliptic curve cryptography is a branch of cryptography that uses mathematical curves to generate keys and perform operations. Elliptic curve cryptography can be used to implement various cryptographic techniques, such as encryption, hashing, or digital signatures. However, elliptic curve cryptography is not a digital signature mechanism by itself, but rather a tool that can be used to create one .

Packet fragmentation is a well-documented IDS evasion technique in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking. Attackers fragment packets to evade detection by overwhelming or confusing intrusion detection systems, especially those that rely on simple pattern matching.

CEH v13 explains that anomaly-based IDS systems are particularly effective against evasion techniques like packet fragmentation because they analyze deviations from normal network behavior, rather than relying on static signatures. Fragmented packets often create unusual traffic patterns, abnormal packet sizes, or irregular reassembly behavior, which anomaly-based systems are designed to detect.

Signature-based IDS solutions struggle against fragmentation because attackers can split malicious payloads across multiple packets in ways that bypass predefined signatures. Rejecting all fragmented packets (Option C) is impractical and could disrupt legitimate network communication, as fragmentation is a normal part of TCP/IP networking.

Recognizing regular intervals (Option A) is unreliable, as attackers can randomize packet timing. CEH v13 clearly recommends anomaly-based detection to counter advanced evasion techniques.

Thus, Option B is the most effective and CEH-aligned IDS configuration.

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is a real-time communication protocol. When a client connects to an IRC server, it must first identify itself using two mandatory commands:

NICK – Specifies the nickname the user wants to use.

USER – Provides user information such as username, hostname, and real name.

These are the very first commands required to establish presence on the IRC network.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 7: Social Engineering

Module 19: IoT and Other Emerging Threats (includes botnets and IRC)

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“When connecting to an IRC server, the client must first send the NICK and USER commands to register the session. Without these, the server will not establish a full connection.”

Incorrect Options:

B, C, D: LOGIN and PASS are not valid IRC protocol commands in this context.

The ethical hacker conducted Test 1, which is a TCP/IP stack fingerprinting technique that uses the SYN and ECN-Echo flags to determine the OS of the target system. The SYN flag is used to initiate a TCP connection, and the ECN-Echo flag is used to indicate that the sender supports Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN), which is a mechanism to reduce network congestion. Different OSes have different implementations and responses to these flags, which can reveal their identity. For example, Windows XP and 2000 will reply with SYN and ECN-Echo flags set, while Linux will reply with only SYN flag set. By sending a TCP packet with these flags enabled to an open TCP port and observing the reply, the ethical hacker can probe the nature of the response and subsequently determine the OS fingerprint.

The ethical hacker adopted this specific approach because it is an advanced and stealthy technique that can evade some firewalls and intrusion detection systems (IDS) that may block or alert other types of packets, such as NULL, FIN, or Xmas packets. Moreover, this technique can provide more accurate and reliable results than other techniques, such as banner grabbing or passive analysis, that may depend on the availability or validity of the information provided by the target system.

The other options are not correct, as they describe different tests and reasons. Test 3 is a TCP/IP stack fingerprinting technique that uses the URG, PSH, SYN, and FIN flags to determine the OS of the target system. Test 2 is a TCP/IP stack fingerprinting technique that uses a NULL packet, which is a TCP packet with no flags enabled, to determine the OS of the target system. Test 6 is a TCP/IP stack fingerprinting technique that uses the ACK flag, which is used to acknowledge the receipt of a TCP segment, to determine the OS of the target system. References:

OS and Application Fingerprinting | SANS Institute

Operating System Fingerprinting | SpringerLink

OS and Application Fingerprinting - community.akamai.com

What is OS Fingerprinting and Techniques - Zerosuniverse

The CEH Mobile Platform Security module explains that mobile antivirus solutions rely heavily on signatures and known exploit patterns. A custom exploit with obfuscation is far more likely to bypass detection.

CEH explicitly teaches that:

Zero-day or unpatched vulnerabilities

Custom, obfuscated payloads

Minimal use of known frameworks

are the most effective for bypassing endpoint defenses during controlled testing.

Option A is correct.

Options B and C are easily detected.

Option D is social engineering, not a technical exploit.

LAN Manager (LM) hashes are legacy password hashing methods used in older Windows systems (including Windows 2000 for backward compatibility). LM hashing works by:

Converting the password to uppercase.

Padding or truncating it to 14 characters.

Splitting it into two 7-character halves.

Using each half as a DES key to encrypt a known constant ("KGS!@#$%").

Therefore, LM hashing uses the DES (Data Encryption Standard) algorithm.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Password Storage and LM Hash Structure

This scenario describes SNMP Enumeration, a technique covered under CEH v13 Reconnaissance and Enumeration. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) operates over UDP port 161 and is widely used for monitoring and managing network devices. A common and critical weakness arises when organizations leave default or publicly known community strings such as public (read-only) or private (read-write) unchanged.

CEH v13 explains that when an SNMP agent is configured with default community strings, it allows unauthenticated or weakly authenticated queries, enabling attackers to retrieve extensive system information. This includes installed software, running processes, system descriptions, network interfaces, and routing tables. The ability to perform bulk data queries using SNMP GET and WALK commands makes enumeration highly effective and fast.

Option B correctly identifies the root cause: misconfigured SNMP agents permitting anonymous or default access. The other options are incorrect because SNMP does not rely on FTP, registry access, or trap logging for enumeration. Traps (Option D) are unsolicited notifications sent to managers and are not used for querying system details.

CEH v13 strongly recommends disabling SNMP when not required, changing default community strings, restricting SNMP access via ACLs, and using SNMPv3, which supports authentication and encryption. Therefore, Option B is the correct and CEH-aligned answer.

CEH v13 outlines a structured approach to vulnerability assessment and exploitation. After identifying a high-severity vulnerability, the next critical step is verification and research, not immediate exploitation. This ensures accuracy, reduces false positives, and avoids unnecessary risk. CEH emphasizes that testers must validate vulnerability details, confirm version applicability, assess exploit availability (e.g., Metasploit, Exploit-DB), and evaluate potential impact. Attempting DoS attacks (Option A) is prohibited unless explicitly scoped and does not align with responsible testing. Brute-force attacks (Option B) are unrelated to software version vulnerabilities. Ignoring the issue (Option D) violates CEH methodology. The correct process is to research and verify—ensuring exploitation is safe, relevant, and authorized. This aligns with CEH’s vulnerability management lifecycle: discovery → verification → prioritization → exploitation (when allowed) → reporting.

CEH v13 identifies Idle (Zombie) Scanning as one of the most stealthy reconnaissance techniques. In this method, attackers use a third-party system (the zombie) to send probes to the target, obscuring the attacker’s true identity.

Because the attacker never directly interacts with the target, detection and attribution become extremely difficult. FIN and Xmas scans are stealthy but still originate from the attacker’s IP. TCP connect scans are noisy and easily detected.

CEH v13 highlights idle scanning as the gold standard for stealth reconnaissance, making option D correct.

The protocol that you would recommend to the team to achieve the secure exchange of the symmetric key is the Diffie-Hellman protocol. The Diffie-Hellman protocol is a key agreement protocol that allows two or more parties to establish a shared secret key over an unsecured communication channel, without having to exchange the key itself. The Diffie-Hellman protocol works as follows12:

The parties agree on a large prime number p and a generator g, which are public parameters that can be known by anyone.

Each party chooses a random private number a or b, which are kept secret from anyone else.

Each party computes a public value A or B, by raising g to the power of a or b modulo p, i.e., A = g^a mod p and B = g^b mod p.

Each party sends their public value A or B to the other party over the unsecured channel.

Each party computes the shared secret key K, by raising the received public value to the power of their own private number modulo p, i.e., K = A^b mod p = B^a mod p.

The parties can now use the shared secret key K to encrypt and decrypt the data using a symmetric key encryption algorithm, such as AES or 3DES.

The Diffie-Hellman protocol can ensure the secure exchange of the symmetric key because it relies on the mathematical difficulty of computing discrete logarithms, which means that it is hard to find the private numbers a or b given the public values A or B, g, and p. Therefore, an attacker who intercepts the public values A or B cannot easily compute the shared secret key K, and thus cannot decrypt the data encrypted with K12.

The other options are not as appropriate as option B for the following reasons:

A. Implementing SSL certificates on your company’s web servers: This option is not relevant because SSL certificates are not used to exchange symmetric keys, but to authenticate the identity of the web servers and to establish a secure connection using public key encryption. SSL certificates are digital certificates that contain the public key and the identity information of the web server, and are issued and signed by a trusted certificate authority (CA). When a client connects to a web server, the web server sends its SSL certificate to the client, who verifies it with the CA. If the verification is successful, the client and the web server use the public key in the certificate to exchange a symmetric key, which is then used to encrypt and decrypt the data. However, this option does not address the scenario of transmitting data over an unsecured communication channel, which may not involve web servers or SSL certificates34.

C. Switching all data transmission to the HTTPS protocol: This option is not sufficient because HTTPS protocol is not a protocol for exchanging symmetric keys, but a protocol for securing web traffic using SSL or TLS encryption. HTTPS protocol is a combination of HTTP protocol and SSL or TLS protocol, which means that it uses HTTP for the application layer communication and SSL or TLS for the transport layer encryption. When a client requests a web page from a web server using HTTPS protocol, the client and the web server establish a secure connection using SSL or TLS protocol, which involves the exchange of SSL certificates and a symmetric key, as explained in option A. Then, the client and the web server use the symmetric key to encrypt and decrypt the HTTP data. However, this option does not address the scenario of transmitting data over an unsecured communication channel, which may not involve web servers or HTTPS protocol5 .

D. Utilizing SSH for secure remote logins to the servers: This option is not applicable because SSH is not a protocol for exchanging symmetric keys, but a protocol for securing remote access to servers using public key authentication and encryption. SSH is a protocol that allows a client to securely connect to a server and execute commands or transfer files over an encrypted channel. SSH uses public key cryptography to authenticate the identity of the server and the client, and to exchange a symmetric key, which is then used to encrypt and decrypt the data. However, this option does not address the scenario of transmitting data over an unsecured communication channel, which may not involve remote logins or SSH protocol .

CEH v13 teaches that NetBIOS enumeration is a key technique for gathering information in Windows environments without raising alarms. Ports 137 and 139 indicate that NetBIOS Name Service (NBNS) and SMB services are active. The tool nbtstat -A <IP> retrieves valuable information including computer names, logged-in users, domain/workgroup membership, and system roles—all passively and without authentication. CEH emphasizes that querying NetBIOS is often overlooked by defenders and generates minimal noise, making it ideal for stealth enumeration. LDAP enumeration (Option A) requires directory access and tends to trigger logs. Psloggedon and pspasswd (Options B and D) involve active interaction and authentication attempts, which are far more detectable. nbtstat is the CEH-recommended tool for initial reconnaissance on Windows networks using NetBIOS and SMB, especially when quiet enumeration is required.

The CEH Cryptanalysis module describes differential cryptanalysis as an attack that studies the relationship between differences in input and resulting differences in output to recover secret keys.

Option A precisely matches this definition.

Option B relies on execution timing.

Option C requires ciphertext manipulation.

Option D exhaustively tests keys.

CEH lists differential cryptanalysis as a foundational theoretical attack.

Implementing regular firmware updates for all IoT devices is the primary recommendation to prevent DDoS attacks on the smart city project. Firmware updates can fix security vulnerabilities, patch bugs, and improve performance of the IoT devices, making them less susceptible to malware infections and botnet recruitment12. Firmware updates can also enable new security features, such as encryption, authentication, and firewall, that can protect the IoT devices from unauthorized access and data theft3. Firmware updates should be done automatically or remotely, without requiring user intervention, to ensure timely and consistent security across the IoT network4.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as firmware updates for the following reasons:

B. Deploying network intrusion detection systems (IDS) across the IoT network can help detect and alert DDoS attacks, but not prevent them. IDS can monitor network traffic and identify malicious patterns, such as high volume, spoofed IP addresses, or unusual protocols, that indicate a DDoS attack5. However, IDS cannot block or mitigate the attack, and may even be overwhelmed by the flood of traffic, resulting in false positives or missed alerts. Moreover, deploying IDS across a vast network of IoT devices can be costly, complex, and resource-intensive, as it requires dedicated hardware, software, and personnel.

C. Establishing strong, unique passwords for each IoT device can prevent unauthorized access and brute-force attacks, but not DDoS attacks. Passwords can protect the IoT devices from being compromised by hackers who try to guess or crack the default or weak credentials. However, passwords cannot prevent DDoS attacks that exploit known or unknown vulnerabilities in the IoT devices, such as buffer overflows, command injections, or protocol flaws. Moreover, establishing and managing strong, unique passwords for each IoT device can be challenging and impractical, as it requires user awareness, memory, and effort.

D. Implementing IP address whitelisting for all IoT devices can restrict network access and communication to trusted sources, but not DDoS attacks. IP address whitelisting can filter out unwanted or malicious traffic by allowing only the predefined IP addresses to connect to the IoT devices. However, IP address whitelisting cannot prevent DDoS attacks that use spoofed or legitimate IP addresses, such as reflection or amplification attacks, that bypass the whitelisting rules. Moreover, implementing IP address whitelisting for all IoT devices can be difficult and risky, as it requires constant updating, testing, and monitoring of the whitelist, and may block legitimate or emergency traffic by mistake.

Passive reconnaissance focuses on collecting information without directly touching or interacting with the target’s systems. CEH materials stress that any action that sends network traffic to the target—such as scanning, probing, fingerprinting, or enumeration—creates logs and increases the risk of detection. Email headers, however, are considered an excellent source of passive intelligence because they reveal internal IP structures, routing paths, mail server hostnames, internal domain formats, and technology stacks without requiring interaction with the target environment. Since these headers are already in the possession of the ethical hacker through legitimate communication records, examining them does not generate traffic or trigger monitoring systems. SSL certificates and WHOIS data provide valuable external information, but they rarely disclose internal addressing schemes. Active scanning tools, such as Nmap, would immediately violate the requirement to avoid detection. Therefore, analyzing previously received email headers is the most effective and covert method for extracting internal network details during the reconnaissance phase.

A Kernel-level rootkit operates at the core of the operating system (OS kernel), enabling the attacker to:

Modify or replace kernel code

Load malicious kernel modules

Hide files, processes, and backdoors at a level that is difficult for standard security tools to detect

According to CEH v13:

Kernel-mode rootkits are highly stealthy and dangerous because they run with the highest privileges.

These rootkits modify system calls and memory structures in the kernel space to conceal malicious activity.

Incorrect Options:

A. User-mode rootkits operate at the application layer and are less stealthy than kernel-level rootkits.

B. Library-level rootkits manipulate standard libraries (like libc) to intercept calls.

D. Hypervisor-level rootkits run beneath the OS (e.g., via virtualization) and are extremely rare and complex.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 06: Malware Threats

Section: “Types of Rootkits”

Subsection: “Kernel-Mode Rootkits vs. User-Mode Rootkits”

A cloud carrier acts as an intermediary that provides connectivity and transport of cloud services between cloud consumers and cloud providers.

Cloud carriers provide access to consumers through network, telecommunication and other access devices. for instance, cloud consumers will obtain cloud services through network access devices, like computers, laptops, mobile phones, mobile web devices (MIDs), etc.

The distribution of cloud services is often provided by network and telecommunication carriers or a transport agent, wherever a transport agent refers to a business organization that provides physical transport of storage media like high-capacity hard drives.

Note that a cloud provider can started SLAs with a cloud carrier to provide services consistent with the level of SLAs offered to cloud consumers, and will require the cloud carrier to provide dedicated and secure connections between cloud consumers and cloud providers.

Ettercap is a comprehensive MITM attack tool that supports live traffic interception and content injection. It can modify HTTP streams in real time and inject malicious payloads, such as JavaScript or applets, into web traffic.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 8: Sniffing

Quote:

“Ettercap allows attackers to intercept, analyze, and alter data on the fly, including injecting malicious content like Java applets in HTTP sessions during MITM attacks.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A & D. Wireshark and Tcpdump are passive sniffers with no injection capability.

C. Aircrack-ng is for Wi-Fi key cracking, not traffic manipulation.

=

A cryptographic hash function is used to ensure data integrity. It generates a fixed-length output (digest) from any size of input data. If the data is modified in any way, the resulting hash will change. This allows systems to detect data tampering, ensuring that the data remains unaltered from its original form.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography

Quote:

“Hash functions are used to ensure the integrity of a message or file by producing a unique digest that changes if the data is modified.”

Incorrect Options:

A. Authentication ensures identity, not data integrity.

B. Confidentiality is achieved via encryption, not hashing.

C. Availability pertains to system uptime and accessibility, not hashes.

=

Web Server Attacks - DNS Server Hijacking Attacker compromises the DNS server and changes the DNS settings so that all the requests coming towards the target web server are redirected to his/her own malicious server. (P.1623/1607)

The base metric represents the inherent qualities of a vulnerability, according to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). CVSS is a framework that numerically characterizes the severity of software vulnerabilities between the range of 0-10. CVSS consists of three metric groups: Base, Temporal, and Environmental. The base metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that are constant over time and across user environments. The base metric group consists of six sub-metrics: Attack Vector, Attack Complexity, Privileges Required, User Interaction, Scope, and Impact. The impact sub-metric further consists of three sub-metrics: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The base metric group produces a score ranging from 0 to 10, which reflects the intrinsic and fundamental properties of a vulnerability12.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

A. Temporal metric represents the inherent qualities of a vulnerability: This option is incorrect because the temporal metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that change over time due to events external to the vulnerability. The temporal metric group consists of three sub-metrics: Exploit Code Maturity, Remediation Level, and Report Confidence. The temporal metric group modifies the base score to reflect the current state of the vulnerability, such as the availability of exploit code, the existence of patches or workarounds, and the degree of verification of the vulnerability report12.

C. Environmental metric involves the features that change during the lifetime of the vulnerability: This option is incorrect because the environmental metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that are relevant and unique to a user’s environment. The environmental metric group consists of three sub-metrics: Modified Attack Vector, Modified Attack Complexity, and Modified Privileges Required. The environmental metric group also allows the user to assign importance values to the impact sub-metrics: Confidentiality Requirement, Integrity Requirement, and Availability Requirement. The environmental metric group modifies the base and temporal scores to reflect the impact of the vulnerability on the user’s specific environment, such as the network configuration, the security objectives, and the asset value12.

D. Temporal metric involves measuring vulnerabilities based on a specific environment or implementation: This option is incorrect because the temporal metric group does not involve measuring vulnerabilities based on a specific environment or implementation, but rather on the factors that change over time due to events external to the vulnerability. The environmental metric group, not the temporal metric group, involves measuring vulnerabilities based on a specific environment or implementation, as explained in option C.

Whitelist validation (also known as allowlist validation) is a robust defensive strategy where only pre-approved input formats are accepted. This includes:

Restricting input to specific data types (e.g., integer, string)

Limiting size, format, or allowed characters

Accepting only expected values (e.g., country codes, age ranges)

This practice is highly effective in mitigating SQL injection and other input-based attacks.

Incorrect Options:

A. Output encoding prevents XSS by encoding output but doesn't validate input.

B. Enforcing least privilege is an access control principle.

D. Blacklist validation is less secure and attempts to block known bad inputs, which may be bypassed.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Input Validation and SQL Injection Mitigation”

Subsection: “Whitelist vs Blacklist Input Validation”

=

The CEH Footprinting and Reconnaissance module describes DNS interrogation as a valuable technique for extracting publicly available infrastructure information such as A records, MX records, NS records, and subdomains.

DNS can reveal:

Subdomains (via zone transfers, brute forcing, or enumeration)

Mail server IP addresses (MX records)

Server locations inferred from IP geolocation

However, DNS does not store authentication credentials. Usernames and passwords are protected within authentication systems and directories, not DNS records.

Therefore, option A is correct.

CEH clearly states that DNS reconnaissance is limited to infrastructure metadata, not sensitive user credentials.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, service version detection is achieved using the -sV option in Nmap.

-sV: Enables version detection of open ports by sending probes to determine the service name and version (e.g., Apache 2.4.49).

Helps identify potential vulnerabilities in specific software versions.

Option Clarification:

A. -SN: Ping scan (host discovery only).

B. -SX: Invalid/undefined option.

C. -sV: Correct option for service version detection.

D. -SF: Sends FIN packets (used in stealth scans), not for version discovery.

Remote File Inclusion occurs when an application allows external resources to be loaded from user-controlled input. CEH teaches that an attacker can supply a remote URL pointing to a malicious script (for example, a PHP shell). When the vulnerable application includes this external file, the attacker's code executes on the server. This can lead to full system compromise, remote command execution, or lateral movement.

In CEH v13 Cloud Computing, APIs are identified as the primary control plane for managing cloud resources. A vulnerability in a cloud API can allow attackers to bypass authentication, escalate privileges, and manipulate resources.

Unauthorized access may lead to:

Data exposure

Resource abuse

Account takeover

Lateral movement within the cloud environment

Physical security (Option A) and encryption at rest (Option D) are unrelated to API flaws. DDoS attacks (Option C) are possible but not the primary risk of API vulnerabilities.

Thus, Option B is correct.

To secure DNS infrastructure, best practices include:

B. Harden DNS Servers: Disable unused services, apply patches, implement secure configurations.

C. Use Split-Horizon DNS: Present different DNS data to internal vs. external users to prevent data leakage.

D. Restrict Zone Transfers: Prevent unauthorized replication of zone data using IP-based access control or TSIG.

E. Subnet Diversity: Place DNS servers on different subnets or networks to enhance resilience.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks

Module 20: Cryptography

Incorrect Option:

A: Hosting DNS on multi-purpose servers increases the attack surface and violates security best practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(cryptography)

A salt is random data that is used as an additional input to a one-way function that hashes data, a password, or passphrase. Salts are used to safeguard passwords in storage. Historically a password was stored in plaintext on a system, but over time additional safeguards were developed to protect a user's password against being read from the system. A salt is one of those methods.

A new salt is randomly generated for each password. In a typical setting, the salt and the password (or its version after key stretching) are concatenated and processed with a cryptographic hash function, and the output hash value (but not the original password) is stored with the salt in a database. Hashing allows for later authentication without keeping and therefore risking exposure of the plaintext password in the event that the authentication data store is compromised.

Salts defend against a pre-computed hash attack, e.g. rainbow tables. Since salts do not have to be memorized by humans they can make the size of the hash table required for a successful attack prohibitively large without placing a burden on the users. Since salts are different in each case, they also protect commonly used passwords, or those users who use the same password on several sites, by making all salted hash instances for the same password different from each other.

The described attack is a Downgrade Security Attack. In this scenario:

The legitimate client and access point support both WPA2 and WPA3.

The attacker introduces a rogue AP that only supports WPA2.

The victim connects to this rogue AP using WPA2 (less secure) instead of WPA3.

Once downgraded, the attacker captures the handshake and attempts to crack the WPA2 encryption.

This is known as a “Downgrade Attack” or “Downgrade Negotiation Attack,” which exploits backward compatibility in security protocols.

Incorrect Options:

A. Timing-based attacks usually refer to side-channel analysis, not protocol downgrading.

B. Side-channel attacks extract info via timing, power usage, etc., not protocol negotiation.

D. Cache-based attacks exploit memory caching behavior.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 16: Hacking Wireless Networks

Section: “Wireless Encryption Attacks”

Subsection: “Downgrade Attacks (WPA3 to WPA2) and Rogue Access Points”

CEH v13 explains that LDAP enumeration is often restricted by Access Control Lists (ACLs). Sensitive directory objects and attributes are frequently protected to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

Even when LDAP is accessible, ACLs can limit the visibility of users, groups, and configuration data.

In CEH v13 Module 17: Mobile and IoT Security, Advanced SMS Phishing (also known as SMiShing) is described as a technique where attackers impersonate trusted entities via SMS to:

Trick users into entering authentication codes or PINs.

Deliver malicious payloads or alter device configurations.

Simulate OTA (Over-the-Air) provisioning messages.

In this case:

The attacker sends a fake OTA setup message asking for a PIN.

Once Ben enters the PIN, the device's configuration is hijacked.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

B. Bypass SSL pinning: Relates to mobile app reverse engineering and traffic interception.

C. Phishing: General term; SMS-specific variant is more accurate here.

D. Tap ‘n ghost: A touch screen manipulation attack, unrelated to messaging.

Correct answer is A. Advanced SMS phishing.

In CEH v13 Module 05: System Hacking, once an attacker gains access to hashed passwords, cracking tools are employed to reverse or brute-force them.

Tool Breakdown:

John the Ripper: A powerful password cracking tool that supports many hash formats.

Hashcat: GPU-based, extremely fast password hash cracking tool.

THC-Hydra: Used for online attacks (e.g., SSH, FTP brute force).

Netcat: Not a password cracking tool — it’s a network utility used for:

Remote shell connections

Banner grabbing

File transfers

Port scanning

Therefore:

C. Netcat is the correct answer — it is not used for password cracking.

Banner grabbing is a technique wont to gain info about a computer system on a network and the services running on its open ports. administrators will use this to take inventory of the systems and services on their network. However, an to find will use banner grabbing so as to search out network hosts that are running versions of applications and operating systems with known exploits.

Some samples of service ports used for banner grabbing are those used by Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP), File Transfer Protocol (FTP), and Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP); ports 80, 21, and 25 severally. Tools normally used to perform banner grabbing are Telnet, nmap and Netcat.

For example, one may establish a connection to a target internet server using Netcat, then send an HTTP request. The response can usually contain info about the service running on the host:

This information may be used by an administrator to catalog this system, or by an intruder to narrow down a list of applicable exploits.

To prevent this, network administrators should restrict access to services on their networks and shut down unused or unnecessary services running on network hosts. Shodan is a search engine for banners grabbed from portscanning the Internet.

In CEH v13 Module 12: Hacking Web Applications, SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) is discussed as a protocol that allows web service communication using XML-based messages.

Correct SOAP Characteristics:

Structured model for data exchange, used in SOAP envelopes.

Built on XML format.

Can operate over multiple application layer protocols, not just HTTP (e.g., SMTP, FTP, JMS).

Option B is incorrect because:

While SOAP most commonly uses HTTP, it is not limited to it. SOAP is protocol-independent at the transport layer.

Passive Assessment Passive assessments sniff the traffic present on the network to identify the active systems, network services, applications, and vulnerabilities. Passive assessments also provide a list of the users who are currently accessing the network.

A Boot Sector Virus infects the master boot record (MBR) of the system. When a system boots, it first loads the MBR into memory. A Boot Sector Virus takes advantage of this by moving the original MBR to a different location on the hard disk and writing itself to the original MBR location. This ensures that it is executed first during system startup.

As per CEH v13 course material:

“A boot sector virus infects the master boot record of a hard disk. It moves the original boot sector to a different location on the hard disk and replaces it with its own malicious code. When the computer is booted, the virus loads first and then hands control to the original boot sector code.”

Reference – CEH v13 Study Guide:

Module 06: Malware Threats, Section: “Types of Malware”, Subsection: “Boot Sector Viruses”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A: Describes directory virus behavior, not boot sector.

B: The virus moves MBR on the hard disk, not RAM.

D: Some viruses overwrite MBR, but most preserve the original and move it to another disk location to maintain system operability.

<03>

Windows Messenger administration

Courier administration is an organization based framework notice Windows administration by Microsoft that was remembered for some prior forms of Microsoft Windows.

This resigned innovation, despite the fact that it has a comparable name, isn’t connected in any capacity to the later, Internet-based Microsoft Messenger administration for texting or to Windows Messenger and Windows Live Messenger (earlier named MSN Messenger) customer programming.

The Messenger Service was initially intended for use by framework managers to tell Windows clients about their networks.[1] It has been utilized malevolently to introduce spring up commercials to clients over the Internet (by utilizing mass-informing frameworks which sent an ideal message to a predetermined scope of IP addresses). Despite the fact that Windows XP incorporates a firewall, it isn’t empowered naturally. Along these lines, numerous clients got such messages. Because of this maltreatment, the Messenger Service has been debilitated as a matter of course in Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Dragonblood allows an attacker in range of a password-protected Wi-Fi network to get the password and gain access to sensitive information like user credentials, emails and mastercard numbers. consistent with the published report:

“The WPA3 certification aims to secure Wi-Fi networks, and provides several advantages over its predecessor WPA2, like protection against offline dictionary attacks and forward secrecy. Unfortunately, we show that WPA3 is suffering from several design flaws, and analyze these flaws both theoretically and practically. Most prominently, we show that WPA3’s Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) handshake, commonly referred to as Dragonfly, is suffering from password partitioning attacks.”

Our Wi-Fi researchers at WatchGuard are educating businesses globally that WPA3 alone won’t stop the Wi-Fi hacks that allow attackers to steal information over the air (learn more in our recent blog post on the topic). These Dragonblood vulnerabilities impact alittle amount of devices that were released with WPA3 support, and makers are currently making patches available. one among the most important takeaways for businesses of all sizes is to know that a long-term fix might not be technically feasible for devices with lightweight processing capabilities like IoT and embedded systems. Businesses got to consider adding products that enable a Trusted Wireless Environment for all kinds of devices and users alike.

Recognizing that vulnerabilities like KRACK and Dragonblood require attackers to initiate these attacks by bringing an “Evil Twin” Access Point or a Rogue Access Point into a Wi-Fi environment, we’ve been that specialize in developing Wi-Fi security solutions that neutralize these threats in order that these attacks can never occur. The Trusted Wireless Environment framework protects against the “Evil Twin” Access Point and Rogue Access Point. one among these hacks is required to initiate the 2 downgrade or side-channel attacks referenced in Dragonblood.

What’s next? WPA3 is an improvement over WPA2 Wi-Fi encryption protocol, however, as we predicted, it still doesn’t provide protection from the six known Wi-Fi threat categories. It’s highly likely that we’ll see more WPA3 vulnerabilities announced within the near future.

To help reduce Wi-Fi vulnerabilities, we’re asking all of you to hitch the Trusted Wireless Environment movement and advocate for a worldwide security standard for Wi-Fi.

https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pci_security/maintaining_payment_security

Build and Maintain a Secure Network

1. Install and maintain a firewall configuration to protect cardholder data.

2. Do not use vendor-supplied defaults for system passwords and other security parameters.

Protect Cardholder Data

3. Protect stored cardholder data.

4. Encrypt transmission of cardholder data across open, public networks.

Maintain a Vulnerability Management Program

5. Use and regularly update anti-virus software or programs.

6. Develop and maintain secure systems and applications.

Implement Strong Access Control Measures

7. Restrict access to cardholder data by business need-to-know.

8. Assign a unique ID to each person with computer access.

9. Restrict physical access to cardholder data.

Regularly Monitor and Test Networks

10. Track and monitor all access to network resources and cardholder data.

11. Regularly test security systems and processes.

Maintain an Information Security Policy

12. Maintain a policy that addresses information security for employees and contractors.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Incident Response lifecycle begins with Identification, followed by containment, eradication, recovery, and lessons learned. CEH documentation stresses that understanding the scope and nature of an incident is critical before taking disruptive action.

Option A is the correct initial response because it focuses on real-time monitoring and log analysis, which are essential during the identification phase. CEH materials emphasize analyzing logs, authentication failures, and traffic anomalies to confirm whether an incident has occurred and determine the attacker’s techniques, persistence level, and impact.

Option B, while valuable, is more appropriate after initial identification. Conducting deep outbound traffic audits without first understanding the attack vector can delay containment decisions.

Option C is premature. CEH warns that changing credentials too early may alert the attacker and cause them to escalate or destroy evidence.

Option D represents a containment strategy, not an initial response. CEH guidelines advise against immediately disconnecting systems unless there is confirmed active data exfiltration that cannot be otherwise controlled, as this may disrupt business operations and erase volatile forensic evidence.

Therefore, the CEH-approved approach is to monitor, analyze, and identify the incident before moving to containment and eradication.

This is a classic phishing scam — a form of social engineering used to trick victims into giving up sensitive information.

Statement D is incorrect because:

Antivirus, anti-spyware, and firewalls are primarily designed to stop malware and network intrusions.

They cannot reliably detect social engineering attacks like phishing emails, especially if the email content appears legitimate.

Detection of phishing is more reliant on user awareness and email filtering policies.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 7: Social Engineering

Module 5: Email Security

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Phishing attacks are psychological rather than purely technical. Antivirus tools cannot detect or prevent all phishing attempts because these are based on user manipulation rather than system compromise.”

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Social Engineering module defines tailgating as a physical social engineering attack where an unauthorized person follows an authorized individual into a restricted area.

Option C precisely matches CEH’s definition.

Option A is pretexting.

Option B is baiting.

Option D is phishing.

CEH stresses physical security awareness as critical as cyber defenses.

A Protocol Analyzer is the correct tool used to examine the contents of packet data (often stored in .pcap files) to determine if a particular sequence of traffic is suspicious, malformed, or part of a known exploit.

In CEH v13:

Module 3: Scanning Networks

Module 4: Enumeration

Module 5: Vulnerability Analysis

Related Lab: Packet Analysis using Wireshark

The CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A protocol analyzer (e.g., Wireshark) captures and decodes packets to display their contents and help analysts understand communication flows and anomalies. It is used to manually inspect packet contents and behavior, which helps distinguish legitimate traffic from attacks.”

PCAP (Packet Capture) files are typically analyzed using tools like Wireshark. These tools decode protocol layers and show payloads, making it easier for analysts to identify if IDS alerts were accurate or false positives.

Incorrect Options:

B. Network sniffer: General term; protocol analyzer is the specific functional tool used.

C. IPS: Prevents or blocks malicious traffic, but does not analyze existing packet captures.

D. Vulnerability scanner: Identifies vulnerabilities on systems/services; not used for packet capture review.

CEH courseware categorizes hackers based on intent, authorization, and affiliation. State-sponsored hackers are defined as individuals or teams who conduct cyber operations on behalf of a government to advance national interests. These operations often include espionage, cyber warfare, intelligence gathering, and covert offensive actions. Unlike organized hackers or cybercriminal groups, whose motivations may include financial gain or ideological activism, state-sponsored units follow strategic directives issued by government agencies. CEH materials explain that such groups operate with access to advanced tools, long-term funding, and classified intelligence, enabling them to execute highly sophisticated and covert operations targeting foreign governments, corporations, or critical infrastructure. Hacktivists pursue political or social causes, while gray-hat hackers operate without explicit permission but without malicious intent. Only state-sponsored hackers match the scenario where cyber experts are formally trained, resourced, and authorized by a national government to conduct operations that remain undetected. Therefore, the correct classification is state-sponsored hackers.

In this scenario, users outside the organization (like Smith and Joseph on dial-up) see the defaced site, while Joseph on the internal corporate network sees the legitimate site. Tripwire confirms that the files on the actual web server are intact. This clearly indicates that the attack was not on the server itself, but rather on how external users are being directed to a malicious server.

This behavior is indicative of a DNS poisoning attack. The attacker poisoned the DNS cache of an external DNS resolver, redirecting www.masonins.com to a malicious server. Internal DNS servers, unaffected by the poisoning, still resolved to the correct IP address.

From CEH v13:

Module 3: DNS Poisoning and Spoofing

Module 5: Vulnerability Analysis

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“DNS poisoning involves injecting false information into a DNS resolver’s cache, causing users to be redirected to malicious websites without changing the actual web server’s content.”

Incorrect Options:

A: ARP spoofing affects local network address resolution, not global DNS.

B: SQL injection is used to exploit databases, not alter DNS records.

D: Routing table injection affects traffic routes, but wouldn’t explain DNS-level redirection discrepancies.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Web Application Security module emphasizes that client-side controls cannot be trusted.

Disabling JavaScript allows attackers to bypass:

Password complexity enforcement

CAPTCHA validation

Input validation logic

Option B is the simplest and most effective CEH-approved method.

Option A is unnecessary and noisy.

Option C risks detection.

Option D is effective but more complex and detectable.

CEH explicitly teaches testers to disable JavaScript to evaluate server-side enforcement.

CEH v13 explains that a keylogger is a type of spyware designed to capture user input covertly, often storing or transmitting captured data—such as passwords, emails, chat messages, and financial information—to an attacker. Keyloggers can be implemented as software, firmware, or hardware, and they operate silently in the background without affecting system performance, making them ideal for credential theft. CEH categorizes keyloggers under spying and monitoring malware frequently used in the System Hacking phase to escalate privileges or move laterally once credentials are harvested. Unlike rootkits, which hide processes, or ransomware, which encrypts files, a keylogger’s main purpose is passive surveillance. CEH emphasizes how attackers deploy keyloggers post-compromise or use phishing/social engineering to trick victims into installing them. Their covert nature and ability to bypass traditional AV solutions by masquerading as legitimate processes make identifying them crucial during forensics and incident response activities.

CEH’s SQL Injection coverage distinguishes between classic (error-based), union-based, boolean-based blind, and time-based blind SQL injection. Time-based blind SQL injection is used when the application does not return database errors or query results to the attacker (no visible output), but the attacker can infer execution behavior by measuring response delays.

A time-based payload intentionally triggers a database delay function (for example, SLEEP(), WAITFOR DELAY, pg_sleep() depending on DBMS). If the injection is successful, the page response time increases predictably, confirming that attacker-controlled SQL is being executed.

Option C is the correct time-based blind probe because it uses conditional logic (IF(1=1, SLEEP(5), 0)) to cause a measurable delay only when the injected condition evaluates true. CEH teaches that this technique is particularly effective against hardened applications that suppress errors and sanitize outputs, because timing becomes the side-channel for confirmation.

Option A and Option D are UNION-based payload patterns intended to extract data via returned result sets, which time-based blind scenarios typically do not provide. Option B is a classic authentication-bypass/boolean test; it can indicate injection but does not specifically validate time-based blind behavior when output is not observable.

CEH mitigation guidance includes parameterized queries, strict input validation, least-privilege DB accounts, WAF tuning, and centralized logging to detect anomalous query timing patterns.

CEH training emphasizes that highly tailored social engineering attacks—those exploiting trust in internal workflows and perceived technical authority—are far more effective than generic or mass-distributed phishing attempts. A fake IT support portal that mirrors internal systems leverages procedural familiarity: IT departments commonly instruct employees to log into support portals for troubleshooting, credential verification, or ticket updates. When the attacker enhances the pretext with insider terminology and references to real internal systems, employees are more likely to trust the portal and enter credentials. CEH highlights that successful social engineering attacks mimic legitimate processes to avoid suspicion. Phone calls posing as executives often introduce risk due to real-time interaction and scrutiny. Generic phishing lacks personalization and is easily detected. Physical impersonation introduces operational risk and may not yield credentials. Therefore, a fake IT support portal aligned with IT workflows is the optimal method.

This scenario describes a Slowloris attack, a classic application-layer DoS attack covered in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking. Slowloris works by opening many HTTP connections and sending data very slowly, preventing the server from closing the connections.

Because the connections appear legitimate, the server keeps them open, eventually exhausting its connection pool. This causes legitimate users to experience timeouts and service unavailability—exactly as described.

ICMP and UDP floods consume bandwidth, which was ruled out. Fragmentation attacks target packet handling, not application-layer sessions.

CEH v13 highlights Slowloris as particularly dangerous because it requires minimal bandwidth and bypasses many traditional DoS defenses. Therefore, Option A is correct.

AES is the industry-standard symmetric encryption algorithm endorsed by CEH v13. It provides strong confidentiality and resists traffic analysis when used with proper modes (e.g., CBC, GCM).

DES is obsolete, HMAC ensures integrity not encryption, PSA is not a standard encryption algorithm.

Thus, Option B is correct.

This falls under Requirement 8 of PCI DSS: "Identify and authenticate access to system components," which supports the objective of implementing strong access control measures.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 20: Hacking Mobile Platforms and IoT – Compliance Standards

"PCI DSS requires unique identification for each person with access to ensure accountability and access control."

According to CEH v13 System Hacking and Web Application Hacking, once reconnaissance and footprinting are complete, attackers typically move into controlled exploitation while maintaining stealth. Since the CEH has already identified a session hijacking vulnerability, leveraging that weakness is the most logical and stealthy progression.

Session hijacking allows attackers to impersonate legitimate users without triggering authentication alerts, making it significantly less detectable than brute-force or scanning activities. Option B aligns with CEH methodology: hijacking a valid session provides authorized-level access, which can then be abused to make configuration changes discreetly.

SQL injection (Option A) may trigger database errors and IDS alerts. Brute-force attacks (Option C) are noisy and easily logged. Automated vulnerability scanning (Option D) generates excessive traffic and is typically avoided once exploitation begins.

CEH v13 emphasizes using already-identified weaknesses and minimizing footprint during exploitation. Therefore, Option B is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Blind SQL injection is used when the application does not return errors or display query results. In such cases, attackers use inference methods such as:

Boolean-based queries

Time-based queries (e.g., using SLEEP or WAITFOR DELAY)

Elliot’s use of timing delays indicates a time-based blind SQL injection.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 10: Web Application Hacking → SQL Injection Types

A SYN flood attack is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that exploits the TCP handshake process by sending a large number of SYN requests to the target server, without completing the connection. This consumes the connection state tables on the server, preventing it from accepting new connections. The attacker has crafted an automated botnet to simultaneously send ‘s’ SYN packets per second to the server. The server can handle ‘f’ SYN packets per second without any performance issues. If ‘s’ exceeds ‘f’, the network infrastructure begins to show signs of overload. The system’s response time increases exponentially (24k), where ‘k’ represents each additional SYN packet above the ‘f’ limit.

Considering ‘s=500’ and different ‘f’ values, the scenario that is most likely to cause the server to experience overload and significantly increased response times is the one where ‘f=420’. This is because ‘s’ is greater than ‘f’ by 80 packets per second, which means the server cannot handle the incoming traffic and will eventually run out of resources. The response time shoots up (2480 = 281,474,976,710,656 times the normal response time), indicating a system overload.

The other scenarios are less likely or less severe than the one where ‘f=420’. Option A has ‘f=510’, which is greater than ‘s’, so the system stays stable and the response time remains unaffected. Option B has ‘f=495’, which is less than ‘s’ by 5 packets per second, so the response time drastically rises (245 = 32 times the normal response time), indicating a probable system overload, but not as extreme as option D. Option C has ‘f=505’, which is less than ‘s’ by 5 packets per second, so the response time increases but not as drastically (245 = 32 times the normal response time), and the system might still function, albeit slowly. References:

SYN flood DDoS attack | Cloudflare

SYN flood - Wikipedia

What Is a SYN Flood Attack? | F5

What is a SYN flood attack and how to prevent it? | NETSCOUT

Types of Vulnerability Assessment - External Assessment External assessment examines the network from a hacker’s point of view to identify exploits and vulnerabilities accessible to the outside world. These types of assessments use external devices such as firewalls, routers, and servers. An external assessment estimates the threat of network security attacks from outside the organization. It determines the level of security of the external network and firewall. (P.527/511)

External assessment examines the network from a hacker’s point of view to identify exploits and vulnerabilities accessible to the outside world. These types of assessments use external devices such as firewalls, routers, and servers. An external assessment estimates the threat of network security attacks from outside the organization. It determines the level of security of the external network and firewall.

The following are some of the possible steps in performing an external assessment:

o Determine a set of rules for firewall and router configurations for the external network

o Check whether the external server devices and network devices are mapped o Identify open ports and related services on the external network o Examine the patch levels on the server and external network devices o Review detection systems such as IDS, firewalls, and application-layer protection systems

o Get information on DNS zones

o Scan the external network through a variety of proprietary tools available on the Internet

o Examine Web applications such as e-commerce and shopping cart software for vulnerabilities

The attack scenario is best described as Instant Messenger Applications, and the measure that could have prevented it is verifying the sender’s identity before opening any files. Instant Messenger Applications are communication tools that allow users to exchange text, voice, video, and file messages in real time. However, they can also be used as attack vectors for spreading malware, such as viruses, worms, or Trojans, by exploiting the trust and familiarity between the users. In this scenario, the attacker compromised one of the team member’s messenger account and used it to send malicious files to the other team members, who may have opened them without suspicion, thus infecting their systems. This type of attack is also known as an instant messaging worm12.

To prevent this type of attack, the users should verify the sender’s identity before opening any files sent through instant messenger applications. This can be done by checking the sender’s profile, asking for confirmation, or using a secure channel. Additionally, the users should also follow other security tips, such as using strong passwords, updating the application software, scanning the files with antivirus software, and reporting any suspicious activity34.

The attacker has most likely used RST hijacking, which is a type of network-level session hijacking technique that exploits the TCP reset (RST) mechanism. TCP reset is a way of terminating an established TCP connection by sending a packet with the RST flag set, indicating that the sender does not want to continue the communication. RST hijacking involves sending a forged RST packet to one or both ends of a TCP connection, using a spoofed source IP address and a guessed acknowledgment number, to trick them into believing that the other end has closed the connection. As a result, the victim’s connection is reset and the attacker can take over the session or launch a denial-of-service attack12.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

A. TCP/IP hijacking: This option is a general term that refers to any type of network-level session hijacking technique that targets TCP/IP connections. RST hijacking is a specific type of TCP/IP hijacking, but not the only one. Other types of TCP/IP hijacking include SYN hijacking, source routing, and sequence prediction3.

B. UDP hijacking: This option is not applicable because UDP is a connectionless protocol that does not use TCP reset mechanism. UDP hijacking is a type of network-level session hijacking technique that targets UDP connections, such as DNS or VoIP. UDP hijacking involves intercepting and modifying UDP packets to redirect or manipulate the communication between the sender and the receiver4.

D. Blind hijacking: This option is not accurate because blind hijacking is a type of network-level session hijacking technique that does not require injecting RST packets. Blind hijacking involves guessing the sequence and acknowledgment numbers of a TCP connection without being able to see the responses from the target. Blind hijacking can be used to inject malicious data or commands into an active TCP session, but not to reset the connection5.

The PSH (Push) flag in TCP instructs the sending system to:

Immediately deliver data to the application.

Avoid waiting for additional buffered data to form a full segment.

This is important in interactive communications like Telnet or SSH, where the delay in transmission would degrade the user experience.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks → TCP Flags and Packet Structure

CEH v13 explains that cryptographic consistency is essential for secure session management. Variable token lengths can leak information about encryption methods, key sizes, or user privilege levels, making sessions vulnerable to cryptanalysis or targeted attacks.

The most effective mitigation is implementing uniform encryption strength across all roles, ensuring consistent key sizes, algorithms, and token formats. While MFA improves authentication and key rotation improves lifecycle management, neither directly resolves cryptographic inconsistency.

CEH v13 stresses that encryption should be role-agnostic and standardized. Therefore, Option C is correct.

Tcpdump is a data-network packet analyzer computer program that runs under a command-line interface. It allows the user to display TCP/IP and other packets being transmitted or received over a network to which the computer is attached. Distributed under the BSD license, tcpdump is free software.

https://www.wireshark.org/

Wireshark is a free and open-source packet analyzer. It is used for network troubleshooting, analysis, software and communications protocol development, and education.

NOTE: Wireshark is very similar to tcpdump, but has a graphical front-end, plus some integrated sorting and filtering options.

This scenario is a textbook example of a Whaling Attack, a highly targeted phishing technique described in the CEH v13 Social Engineering module. Whaling specifically targets senior executives or high-ranking individuals, exploiting their authority, access privileges, and decision-making roles.

In the given case, the attacker crafts a personalized email, impersonates the CEO, and uses legitimate corporate branding to build trust. The malicious PDF attachment delivers a backdoor, aligning with CEH v13 descriptions of advanced spear-phishing techniques used against executives.

CEH v13 differentiates whaling from other phishing types:

Broad phishing targets large groups indiscriminately.

Pharming redirects users via DNS manipulation.

Email clone attacks copy legitimate emails but typically target peers, not executives.

Whaling attacks are particularly dangerous because executives often bypass security scrutiny and possess elevated system access. CEH v13 emphasizes executive awareness training as a key mitigation strategy.

Therefore, the correct answer is Whaling attack aimed at high-ranking personnel.

This describes a rule-based or logic-based password attack, which CEH v13 classifies as a smart, targeted guessing technique. Attackers use known patterns—such as naming conventions, dates, or personal interests—to reduce the keyspace and increase success rates.

Option A accurately reflects this methodology. Option B is brute force, which is random and exhaustive. Option C is physical observation. Option D describes hybrid attacks without structured logic.

CEH v13 emphasizes that pattern-based attacks are highly effective when attackers possess prior intelligence. Therefore, Option A is correct.

A rootkit is a type of stealth malware designed to hide the existence of certain processes or programs from normal detection methods. It can:

Hide itself and other processes

Conceal files and registry entries

Intercept system calls or keystrokes (keylogging)

Maintain persistent access

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Rootkits

Incorrect Options:

A: A Trojan may offer remote access but doesn't necessarily hide itself.

C: DoS tools are used to overload systems, not hide.

D: Scanners detect vulnerabilities, not conceal activities.

E: A backdoor may provide unauthorized access, but rootkits focus on hiding.

CEH v13 emphasizes that after identifying vulnerabilities during scanning, testers must validate findings to determine real impact and eliminate false positives. This requires safe, controlled exploitation using approved tools such as Metasploit, Nikto, or custom proof-of-concept scripts. Misconfigurations labeled as medium-risk may still provide privilege escalation, data exposure, or footholds for further attacks. CEH methodology reinforces that exploitation should always follow the scope and rules of engagement and should avoid disruptive activities like brute-forcing or DoS attacks unless explicitly authorized. Ignoring the vulnerabilities is never acceptable in a professional assessment. Verifying the issue helps the organization prioritize remediation using evidence-based results. Therefore, the correct next step is to verify the vulnerability through controlled exploitation.

CEH v13 explains that when traditional enumeration techniques—such as SMB null sessions—are disabled, attackers often pivot to misconfigured LDAP services that still allow anonymous binding. LDAP anonymous bind, when not properly restricted, exposes directory information such as usernames, organizational units, group memberships, and other metadata. This aligns directly with the scenario, where the tester must avoid triggering alarms while still gathering internal data. LDAP queries generate minimal noise, often blending with normal authentication-related traffic, making them ideal for covert enumeration. Options A and C would require authentication or violate access restrictions, and DNS zone transfers (Option D) rarely succeed because modern DNS servers disable AXFR requests from unauthorized clients. CEH repeatedly stresses the importance of detecting and securing LDAP anonymous bind due to its potential for silent information leakage—making Option B the correct choice.

*REST is not a specification, tool, or framework, but instead is an architectural style for web services that serves as a communication medium between various systems on the web. *RESTful APIs, which are also known as RESTful services, are designed using REST principles and HTTP communication protocols RESTful is a collection of resources that use HTTP methods such as PUT, POST, GET, and DELETE

RESTful API: RESTful API is a RESTful service that is designed using REST principles and HTTP communication protocols. RESTful is a collection of resources that use HTTP methods such as PUT, POST, GET, and DELETE. RESTful API is also designed to make applications independent to improve the overall performance, visibility, scalability, reliability, and portability of an application. APIs with the following features can be referred to as to RESTful APIs: o Stateless: The client end stores the state of the session; the server is restricted to save data during the request processing o Cacheable: The client should save responses (representations) in the cache. This feature can enhance API performance pg. 1920 CEHv11 manual.

https://cloud.google.com/files/apigee/apigee-web-api-design-the-missing-link-ebook.pdf

The HTTP methods GET, POST, PUT or PATCH, and DELETE can be used with these templates to read, create, update, and delete description resources for dogs and their owners. This API style has become popular for many reasons. It is straightforward and intuitive, and learning this pattern is similar to learning a programming language API. APIs like this one are commonly called RESTful APIs, although they do not display all of the characteristics that define REST (more on REST later).

This scenario clearly describes the need for Time-Based Blind SQL Injection, an advanced SQL injection technique covered in the CEH v13 Web Application Hacking module. Blind SQL injection is used when an application does not return database errors or visible output, making traditional techniques ineffective.

According to CEH v13, Time-Based Blind SQL Injection is particularly useful when:

The backend database type is unknown

Error messages are suppressed

UNION queries fail

No direct data is returned in responses

In this technique, attackers inject SQL statements that deliberately introduce time delays using database-specific functions such as SLEEP(), WAITFOR DELAY, or BENCHMARK(). The ethical hacker then observes the application’s response time to determine whether the injected condition is true or false.

For example:

' OR IF(1=1, SLEEP(5), 0) --

If the application response is delayed, it confirms that the injected SQL statement was executed successfully. CEH v13 categorizes this method as behavioral-based inference, where the attacker extracts information one bit at a time by analyzing timing differences.

Other options are incorrect because:

Content-Based Blind SQL Injection relies on visible differences in responses, which the question states are unavailable.

Union-Based SQL Injection requires knowing column count and data types.

Error-Based SQL Injection depends on database error messages being displayed.

CEH v13 emphasizes Time-Based Blind SQL Injection as a last-resort yet highly effective technique when dealing with hardened applications that suppress output, making it a frequent exam-tested concept.

Challenge/response authentication is designed to prevent replay attacks. In this mechanism:

The server sends a random “challenge” string.

The client uses its secret (like a password or private key) to generate a response.

The server verifies that the response matches what it expected for that challenge.

Since the challenge is random and changes each time, an attacker cannot simply capture and replay previous responses to gain unauthorized access.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 11: Session Hijacking

Module 6: Authentication Protocols

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Challenge-response authentication prevents replay attacks by using dynamically generated nonces or challenge tokens that change with each session.”

Incorrect Options:

B: Scanning attacks are not related to authentication mechanisms.

C: Session hijacking involves active takeovers, not replaying login attempts.

D: Password cracking targets password hashes, not session tokens.

MAC flooding is a Layer 2 attack described in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking, where attackers overwhelm a switch’s CAM table with fake MAC addresses. Once the table is full, the switch behaves like a hub, forwarding traffic to all ports.

The most definitive indicator of MAC flooding is numerous MAC addresses learned on a single switch port, which is abnormal behavior in a properly segmented network. CEH v13 identifies this condition as a key forensic indicator of CAM table exhaustion.

ARP anomalies may occur, but they are more commonly associated with ARP spoofing attacks. IP-to-MAC inconsistencies indicate MITM attacks, not MAC flooding.

Thus, option C is the clearest confirmation.

Outdated encryption protocols such as SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 contain numerous cryptographic weaknesses, making them susceptible to downgrade attacks, cipher-suite vulnerabilities, and interception. CEH explains that weak SSL/TLS configurations expose encrypted traffic to man-in-the-middle attacks because attackers can exploit vulnerabilities such as BEAST, POODLE, or weak ciphers to decrypt or manipulate data in transit. These flaws compromise confidentiality and integrity, allowing attackers to observe login credentials, session identifiers, or sensitive information. XSS and SQL injection exploit entirely different web vulnerabilities unrelated to encryption strength. Brute-forcing SSL handshakes is computationally infeasible and not relevant. Therefore, a MitM attack targeting the outdated protocol is the most effective exploitation method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikto_(vulnerability_scanner)

Nikto is a free software command-line vulnerability scanner that scans web servers for dangerous files/CGIs, outdated server software, and other problems. It performs generic and server types specific checks. It also captures and prints any cookies received. The Nikto code itself is free software, but the data files it uses to drive the program are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADIUS

Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) is a networking protocol that provides centralized authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) management for users who connect and use a network service.

RADIUS is a client/server protocol that runs in the application layer, and can use either TCP or UDP. Network access servers, which control access to a network, usually contain a RADIUS client component that communicates with the RADIUS server. RADIUS is often the back-end of choice for 802.1X authentication. A RADIUS server is usually a background process running on UNIX or Microsoft Windows.

Authentication and authorization

The user or machine sends a request to a Network Access Server (NAS) to gain access to a particular network resource using access credentials. The credentials are passed to the NAS device via the link-layer protocol—for example, Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) in the case of many dialup or DSL providers or posted in an HTTPS secure web form.

In turn, the NAS sends a RADIUS Access Request message to the RADIUS server, requesting authorization to grant access via the RADIUS protocol.

This request includes access credentials, typically in the form of username and password or security certificate provided by the user. Additionally, the request may contain other information which the NAS knows about the user, such as its network address or phone number, and information regarding the user's physical point of attachment to the NAS.

The RADIUS server checks that the information is correct using authentication schemes such as PAP, CHAP or EAP. The user's proof of identification is verified, along with, optionally, other information related to the request, such as the user's network address or phone number, account status, and specific network service access privileges. Historically, RADIUS servers checked the user's information against a locally stored flat-file database. Modern RADIUS servers can do this or can refer to external sources—commonly SQL, Kerberos, LDAP, or Active Directory servers—to verify the user's credentials.

The RADIUS server then returns one of three responses to the NAS:

1) Access-Reject,

2) Access-Challenge,

3) Access-Accept.

Access-Reject

The user is unconditionally denied access to all requested network resources. Reasons may include failure to provide proof of identification or an unknown or inactive user account.

Access-Challenge

Requests additional information from the user such as a secondary password, PIN, token, or card. Access-Challenge is also used in more complex authentication dialogs where a secure tunnel is established between the user machine and the Radius Server in a way that the access credentials are hidden from the NAS.

Access-Accept

The user is granted access. Once the user is authenticated, the RADIUS server will often check that the user is authorized to use the network service requested. A given user may be allowed to use a company's wireless network, but not its VPN service, for example. Again, this information may be stored locally on the RADIUS server or may be looked up in an external source such as LDAP or Active Directory.

Zigbee could be a wireless technology developed as associate open international normal to deal with the unique desires of affordable, low-power wireless IoT networks. The Zigbee normal operates on the IEEE 802.15.4 physical radio specification and operates in unauthorised bands as well as a pair of.4 GHz, 900 MHz and 868 MHz.

The 802.15.4 specification upon that the Zigbee stack operates gained confirmation by the Institute of Electrical and physical science Engineers (IEEE) in 2003. The specification could be a packet-based radio protocol supposed for affordable, battery-operated devices. The protocol permits devices to speak in an exceedingly kind of network topologies and may have battery life lasting many years.

The Zigbee three.0 Protocol

The Zigbee protocol has been created and ratified by member corporations of the Zigbee Alliance.Over three hundred leading semiconductor makers, technology corporations, OEMs and repair corporations comprise the Zigbee Alliance membership. The Zigbee protocol was designed to supply associate easy-to-use wireless information answer characterised by secure, reliable wireless network architectures.

THE ZIGBEE ADVANTAGE

The Zigbee 3.0 protocol is intended to speak information through rip-roaring RF environments that area unit common in business and industrial applications. Version 3.0 builds on the prevailing Zigbee normal however unifies the market-specific application profiles to permit all devices to be wirelessly connected within the same network, no matter their market designation and performance. what is more, a Zigbee 3.0 certification theme ensures the ability of product from completely different makers. Connecting Zigbee three.0 networks to the information science domain unveil observance and management from devices like smartphones and tablets on a local area network or WAN, as well as the web, and brings verity net of Things to fruition.

Zigbee protocol options include:

Support for multiple network topologies like point-to-point, point-to-multipoint and mesh networks

Low duty cycle – provides long battery life

Low latency

Direct Sequence unfold Spectrum (DSSS)

Up to 65,000 nodes per network

128-bit AES encryption for secure information connections

Collision avoidance, retries and acknowledgements

This is another short-range communication protocol based on the IEEE 203.15.4 standard. Zig-Bee is used in devices that transfer data infrequently at a low rate in a restricted area and within a range of 10–100 m.

In the CEH Denial-of-Service and Network Attacks coverage, a SYN flood is a classic TCP-based DoS technique that exploits the TCP connection establishment process. In a normal handshake, the client sends SYN, the server replies SYN/ACK, and the client completes with ACK. A SYN flood deliberately sends a high volume of SYN packets (often spoofed) but never completes the final ACK. As CEH describes, this leaves the server holding many half-open connections in SYN_RECEIVED, consuming memory and connection table resources (backlog queue). When the backlog fills, legitimate clients cannot establish connections, degrading availability.

The indicators in your scenario align exactly with CEH’s SYN flood fingerprints: incomplete handshakes and accumulation of half-open connections. The goal is resource exhaustion at the connection-management layer rather than bandwidth saturation.

Option B (Ping of Death) involves malformed/oversized ICMP packets and does not match SYN_RECEIVED behavior. Option C (UDP flood) targets UDP services/ports and creates different symptoms (high UDP traffic, ICMP unreachable messages, service degradation) without half-open TCP states. Option D (Smurf) is ICMP-based amplification via broadcast addresses—again unrelated to incomplete TCP handshakes.

CEH also notes mitigations such as SYN cookies, increasing backlog, reducing SYN-RECEIVED timers, rate limiting, and upstream filtering—further reinforcing that the described event is a SYN flood.

CEH teaches that ARP-based attacks vary in sophistication from basic poisoning to more specialized techniques such as switch port stealing. In environments where ARP poisoning defenses or inspection tools limit traditional attacks, attackers may exploit timing vulnerabilities in ARP reply behavior. Switch port stealing works by sending spoofed ARP replies at precisely the right moment—before the legitimate ARP response from the target host—causing the switch’s CAM table to update temporarily and associate the target’s IP address with the attacker’s MAC address. CEH emphasizes that switches trust the latest ARP update, so even brief timing windows enable partial packet interception. This is different from fully persistent ARP poisoning, which continuously overwrites ARP tables, and from passive sniffing, which cannot capture unicast traffic on a switched network. This attack is particularly useful when ARP spoofing is mitigated because it relies on opportunistic timing rather than full table poisoning. The intermittent nature of intercepted packets matches CEH’s description of switch port stealing behavior.

A honeypot may be a trap that an IT pro lays for a malicious hacker, hoping that they will interact with it during a way that gives useful intelligence. It’s one among the oldest security measures in IT, but beware: luring hackers onto your network, even on an isolated system, are often a dangerous game.

honeypot may be a good starting place: “A honeypot may be a computer or computing system intended to mimic likely targets of cyberattacks.” Often a honeypot are going to be deliberately configured with known vulnerabilities in situation to form a more tempting or obvious target for attackers. A honeypot won’t contain production data or participate in legitimate traffic on your network — that’s how you’ll tell anything happening within it’s a results of an attack. If someone’s stopping by, they’re up to no good.

That definition covers a various array of systems, from bare-bones virtual machines that only offer a couple of vulnerable systems to ornately constructed fake networks spanning multiple servers. and therefore the goals of these who build honeypots can vary widely also , starting from defense thorough to academic research. additionally , there’s now an entire marketing category of deception technology that, while not meeting the strict definition of a honeypot, is certainly within the same family. But we’ll get thereto during a moment.

honeypots aim to permit close analysis of how hackers do their dirty work. The team controlling the honeypot can watch the techniques hackers use to infiltrate systems, escalate privileges, and otherwise run amok through target networks. These sorts of honeypots are found out by security companies, academics, and government agencies looking to look at the threat landscape. Their creators could also be curious about learning what kind of attacks are out there, getting details on how specific sorts of attacks work, or maybe trying to lure a specific hackers within the hopes of tracing the attack back to its source. These systems are often inbuilt fully isolated lab environments, which ensures that any breaches don’t end in non-honeypot machines falling prey to attacks.

Production honeypots, on the opposite hand, are usually deployed in proximity to some organization’s production infrastructure, though measures are taken to isolate it the maximum amount as possible. These honeypots often serve both as bait to distract hackers who could also be trying to interrupt into that organization’s network, keeping them faraway from valuable data or services; they will also function a canary within the coalpit , indicating that attacks are underway and are a minimum of partially succeeding.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) provides virtualized computing infrastructure over the internet. In this model:

The cloud provider supplies the hardware (servers, storage, networking).

The client (your organization) is responsible for installing and managing the OS, applications, and all configurations.

This aligns with the question, where the organization must take full responsibility for maintenance.

Incorrect Options:

A. PaaS offers managed OS, middleware, and runtime, reducing customer responsibilities.

B. SaaS provides fully managed applications—users only access features.

C. Functions as a Service (FaaS) offers event-driven computing without server management, used in serverless environments.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 19: Cloud Computing

Section: “Cloud Service Models”

Table: “Responsibilities in IaaS vs PaaS vs SaaS”

=

Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) devices are internet-connected medical devices that can collect, transfer, and analyze data over a network. They can provide improved patient care and comfort, but they also pose security challenges and risks, as they can be targeted by cyberattacks, such as ransomware, that can compromise their functionality, integrity, or confidentiality. Ransomware is a type of malware that encrypts the victim’s data or system and demands a ransom for its decryption or restoration. Ransomware attacks can cause serious harm to healthcare organizations, as they can disrupt their operations, endanger their patients, and damage their reputation.

To protect IoMT devices from ransomware attacks, the main recommendation is to use network segmentation to isolate IoMT devices from the main network. Network segmentation is a technique that divides a network into smaller subnetworks, each with its own security policies and controls. Network segmentation can prevent or limit the spread of ransomware from one subnetwork to another, as it restricts the communication and access between them. Network segmentation can also improve the performance, visibility, and manageability of the network, as it reduces the network congestion, complexity, and noise.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as network segmentation. Implementing multi-factor authentication for all IoMT devices may not be possible or practical, as some IoMT devices may not support or require user authentication, such as sensors or monitors. Disabling all wireless connectivity on IoMT devices may not be desirable or realistic, as some IoMT devices rely on wireless communication protocols, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or Zigbee, to function or transmit data. Regularly changing the IP addresses of all IoMT devices may not prevent or deter ransomware attacks, as ransomware can target devices based on other factors, such as their domain names, MAC addresses, or vulnerabilities. References:

What Is Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Security?

5 Steps to Secure Internet of Medical Things Devices

Ransomware in Healthcare: How to Protect Your Organization

[Network Segmentation: Definition, Benefits, and Best Practices]

SQL injection is one of the most common and dangerous vulnerabilities covered in CEH training. It occurs when an application accepts unsanitized input and directly passes it to a backend SQL query. To confirm the presence of SQL injection, the tester must insert a payload that alters the logic of the SQL query executed by the application. A classic test payload such as “1 OR 1=1 —” is widely used because it forces the database to return all rows instead of filtering based on the intended search value. This verifies whether the input field is being concatenated directly into a SQL command. The CEH methodology emphasizes starting with simple, non-destructive boolean-based payloads to safely evaluate the vulnerability without causing harm to the database or impacting server availability. Since directory traversal, brute-force login attempts, and XSS attacks target entirely different weaknesses, they are not appropriate for confirming SQL injection. The selected option aligns with proper CEH testing methodology for identifying insecure input handling and improper query construction.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) uses:

TCP/UDP port 389 for standard LDAP communication.

TCP/UDP port 636 for secure LDAP over SSL (LDAPS).

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks → Common Ports and Protocols

Incorrect Options:

A: Port 110 = POP3

C: Port 464 = Kerberos change/set password

D: Port 445 = SMB over TCP/IP (used for file sharing)

An anomaly-based intrusion detection system is an intrusion detection system for detecting both network and computer intrusions and misuse by monitoring system activity and classifying it as either normal or anomalous. The classification is based on heuristics or rules, rather than patterns or signatures, and attempts to detect any type of misuse that falls out of normal system operation. This is as opposed to signature-based systems, which can only detect attacks for which a signature has previously been created.

In order to positively identify attack traffic, the system must be taught to recognize normal system activity. The two phases of a majority of anomaly detection systems consist of the training phase (where a profile of normal behaviors is built) and the testing phase (where current traffic is compared with the profile created in the training phase). Anomalies are detected in several ways, most often with artificial intelligence type techniques. Systems using artificial neural networks have been used to great effect. Another method is to define what normal usage of the system comprises using a strict mathematical model, and flag any deviation from this as an attack. This is known as strict anomaly detection.[3] Other techniques used to detect anomalies include data mining methods, grammar-based methods, and the Artificial Immune System.

Network-based anomalous intrusion detection systems often provide a second line of defense to detect anomalous traffic at the physical and network layers after it has passed through a firewall or other security appliance on the border of a network. Host-based anomalous intrusion detection systems are one of the last layers of defense and reside on computer endpoints. They allow for fine-tuned, granular protection of endpoints at the application level.

Anomaly-based Intrusion Detection at both the network and host levels have a few shortcomings; namely a high false-positive rate and the ability to be fooled by a correctly delivered attack. Attempts have been made to address these issues through techniques used by PAYL and MCPAD.

According to CEH v13 Cloud Computing, improper identity and access management (IAM) is one of the most common causes of cloud security incidents. When former employees retain access to cloud resources, it represents a failure in user lifecycle management, specifically in the de-provisioning phase.

Timely user de-provisioning ensures that when an employee leaves the organization or changes roles, all associated access rights—API keys, IAM roles, credentials, tokens, and permissions—are immediately revoked. CEH v13 emphasizes that cloud environments magnify this risk because access is often centralized and remote, meaning former employees can access systems from anywhere.

Options A, B, and C are supportive security practices but do not directly address the root cause. Multi-cloud models do not prevent unauthorized access. Traffic analysis may detect misuse after the fact but does not prevent it. Penetration testing identifies vulnerabilities but does not manage user access.

CEH v13 explicitly identifies timely de-provisioning as a critical cloud security control to prevent insider threats, privilege abuse, and compliance violations. Therefore, Option D is the correct answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Subnet 10.1.4.0/23 includes addresses from:

10.1.4.0 to 10.1.5.255

Total = 512 IPs (510 usable)

Last 100 usable IPs would be:

Start: 10.1.5.155 to 10.1.5.254

Only option C (10.1.5.200) falls within that range.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Subnetting & IP Addressing

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

To identify inconsistencies in secure asset records and confirm that systems meet baseline security standards, vulnerability scanning and checking data items (e.g., configuration settings, software versions) is essential. This helps the analyst discover gaps between expected and actual system states.

From CEH v13 Official Curriculum:

Module 5: Vulnerability Assessment → Security Assessment Techniques

“Automated vulnerability scanners and asset inventories help validate that systems are compliant with security baselines.”

VLAN hopping is an advanced attack technique described in CEH materials, used to bypass VLAN segmentation by exploiting switch misconfigurations or vulnerabilities. Two primary methods—switch spoofing and double tagging—allow attackers to gain access to traffic from VLANs they are not authorized to view. This technique enables the capture of inter-VLAN traffic without requiring administrative privileges or triggering security tools. Port mirroring requires administrative control and is not an attack method. Rogue DHCP servers target IP assignment, not VLAN segmentation. ARP poisoning is effective only within a single broadcast domain and cannot traverse VLAN boundaries. Because the objective is to silently access multiple VLANs despite enforced segmentation, VLAN hopping is the correct technique as per CEH’s network perimeter attack methodology.

In CEH v13 Wireless Hacking, brute-force attacks against Secure Simple Pairing (SSP) exploit repeated attempts to guess cryptographic values. The most effective defense is rate limiting, which restricts how many pairing attempts can be made in a given timeframe.

Increasing key length does not stop brute-force attempts if unlimited tries are allowed. BLE still uses pairing mechanisms and is not immune. Whitelisting controls access but does not prevent cryptographic attacks during pairing.

CEH v13 explicitly recommends rate limiting and pairing attempt thresholds as primary mitigations. Therefore, Option C is correct.

CEH v13 highlights that encrypting session data in transit is one of the strongest defenses against session hijacking. IPsec VPN encrypts the entire IP packet, preventing attackers from capturing usable session tokens.

IPS helps detection but not prevention. Physical security and awareness do not address technical hijacking.

Therefore, Option A is correct.

Key observations in the packet capture:

Repeated 0x90 values indicate a NOP sled (No Operation instructions), commonly used in buffer overflow payloads to guide execution to the malicious shellcode.

The presence of "/bin/sh" in ASCII indicates that the attacker intends to launch a shell (command-line access) on the victim’s system once the overflow is successful.

The payload likely contains shellcode that spawns a shell, giving the attacker command-line access.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 9: Denial-of-Service

Module 5: Vulnerability Analysis

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A buffer overflow exploit typically involves injecting a NOP sled followed by shellcode. The string '/bin/sh' is a tell-tale sign of shell-spawning code that aims to give the attacker command access.”

Incorrect Options:

A: There's no evidence the IDS blocked the attack—only that it logged it.

B: Creating a directory would not involve a NOP sled or spawn a shell.

C: We cannot confirm success; only the intent and method are clear.

«Many IDS reassemble communication streams; hence, if a packet is not received within a reasonable period, many IDS stop reassembling and handling that stream. If the application under attack keeps a session active for a longer time than that spent by the IDS on reassembling it, the IDS will stop. As a result, any session after the IDS stops reassembling the sessions will be susceptible to malicious data theft by attackers. The IDS will not log any attack attempt after a successful splicing attack. Attackers can use tools such as Nessus for session splicing attacks.»

Did you know that the EC-Council exam shows how well you know their official book? So, there is no "Whisker" in it. In the chapter "Evading IDS" -> "Session Splicing", the recommended tool for performing a session-splicing attack is Nessus. Where Wisker came from is not entirely clear, but I will assume the author of the question found it while copying Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusion_detection_system_evasion_techniques

One basic technique is to split the attack payload into multiple small packets so that the IDS must reassemble the packet stream to detect the attack. A simple way of splitting packets is by fragmenting them, but an adversary can also simply craft packets with small payloads. The 'whisker' evasion tool calls crafting packets with small payloads 'session splicing'.

By itself, small packets will not evade any IDS that reassembles packet streams. However, small packets can be further modified in order to complicate reassembly and detection. One evasion technique is to pause between sending parts of the attack, hoping that the IDS will time out before the target computer does. A second evasion technique is to send the packets out of order, confusing simple packet re-assemblers but not the target computer.

NOTE: Yes, I found scraps of information about the tool that existed in 2012, but I can not give you unverified information. According to the official tutorials, the correct answer is Nessus, but if you know anything about Wisker, please write in the QA section. Maybe this question will be updated soon, but I'm not sure about that.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

TCPView is a Windows Sysinternals utility that provides a real-time graphical view of:

TCP and UDP endpoints on the system

Listening, established, and closing states

Associated process names using the connections

It’s ideal for administrators or analysts looking to monitor and troubleshoot live network activity.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks → Tools for Port and Service Discovery

Incorrect Options:

A. Netstat provides snapshot (static) info, not real-time with process association.

C. Nmap is used for remote scanning, not real-time local monitoring.

D. Loki is a covert channel tool used for stealthy communication.

A Stealth or Tunneling Virus is designed specifically to evade detection by antivirus software and system monitoring tools. These viruses work by intercepting and modifying the operating system’s service call interrupts (such as INT 13h and INT 21h in DOS systems), which are used to access files or system services.

By hooking into these interrupts, the virus can return clean or forged data to antivirus scanners, thus hiding its malicious presence from detection tools.

Tunneling viruses may also operate at a lower level to evade even more advanced antivirus detection methods, making them particularly dangerous and hard to detect.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Section: Types of Viruses

Quote:

“Tunneling viruses attempt to avoid detection by antivirus programs by installing themselves in the interrupt handler chain. These viruses intercept operating system calls to conceal their activities.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Macro viruses target applications like Microsoft Word/Excel and use embedded macros, but do not alter service call interrupts.

C. Cavity viruses insert code into empty spaces in files without changing the file size but do not modify interrupts.

D. Polymorphic viruses mutate their code to avoid signature-based detection but do not typically interfere with system interrupts directly.

The payload that would have the most significant impact in the case of a successful SQL injection attack is OR ‘a’='a; DROP TABLE members; --. This payload combines the manipulation of the WHERE clause with a destructive action, causing data loss. This payload works as follows:

The OR ‘a’='a part of the payload is a logical expression that is always true, regardless of the input or the condition of the SQL statement. This part of the payload allows the attacker to bypass any authentication or authorization checks that may be implemented in the SQL statement, such as a login form or a search query.

The ; part of the payload is a statement terminator that marks the end of the current SQL statement and allows the attacker to inject another SQL statement after it. This part of the payload enables the attacker to execute multiple SQL statements in a single query, which is also known as stacked queries or batched queries.

The DROP TABLE members part of the payload is a destructive SQL statement that deletes the entire table named members from the database. This part of the payload causes data loss and may compromise the functionality and integrity of the application that relies on the table. The table name may vary depending on the target database, but the attacker can use other techniques, such as error-based or union-based SQL injection, to discover the table names before executing the drop statement.

The – part of the payload is a comment symbol that tells the SQL engine to ignore the rest of the query. This part of the payload helps the attacker to avoid any syntax errors or unwanted results that may arise from the original query.

The other options are not as impactful as option C for the following reasons:

A. ‘OR 'T="1: This payload manipulates the WHERE clause of an SQL statement, allowing the attacker to view unauthorized data. This payload is a common and basic SQL injection technique that injects a logical expression that is always true, such as 'OR 'T="1 or 'OR 1=1, to bypass the authentication or authorization checks of the SQL statement. This payload can allow the attacker to view data that they are not supposed to, such as user credentials, personal information, or financial records. However, this payload does not cause any data loss or modification, and it does not affect the functionality or integrity of the application.

B. ‘OR username LIKE '%: This payload uses the LIKE operator to search for a specific pattern in a column. This payload is a variation of the previous payload that injects a logical expression that is always true, such as 'OR username LIKE '% or 'OR 1 LIKE '%, to bypass the authentication or authorization checks of the SQL statement. The LIKE operator is used to compare a value with a pattern that may contain wildcard characters, such as % or _, which match any string or character. This payload can allow the attacker to view data that matches the pattern, such as usernames that start with a certain letter or contain a certain substring. However, this payload does not cause any data loss or modification, and it does not affect the functionality or integrity of the application.

D. UNION SELECT NULL, NULL, NULL – : This payload manipulates the UNION SQL operator, enabling the attacker to retrieve data from different database tables. This payload is an advanced SQL injection technique that injects the UNION SQL operator to combine the results of two or more SELECT statements into a single result set, which is then returned as part of the HTTP response. The UNION operator can be used to join the results from different tables that have the same number and type of columns. The NULL values are used to match the column types and avoid any errors. This payload can allow the attacker to retrieve data from tables that are not intended to be accessed by the application, such as system tables, configuration tables, or backup tables. However, this payload does not cause any data loss or modification, and it does not affect the functionality or integrity of the application.

CEH guidance for web server hardening prioritizes controls that reduce exploitable conditions across the broadest set of threats. While obscuring paths (for example, unusual directory names like “certrcx” or storing content under “/admin/web”) may slightly slow down casual discovery, CEH emphasizes that security through obscurity is not a reliable control. If an attacker can identify the server root, document root, and virtual directory structure (through misconfigurations, directory listing, error leakage, backup exposure, or known-path enumeration), then the real risk becomes unpatched vulnerabilities in the web server, modules, libraries, and underlying OS.

Regularly updating and patching the server software is the most direct, high-impact countermeasure because it closes known vulnerabilities attackers routinely exploit (RCE, privilege escalation, auth bypass, path traversal, request smuggling, etc.). CEH materials also stress that virtual hosting expands the attack surface (multiple sites, shared services, shared misconfigurations), making systematic patching and configuration management even more important.

Option A (moving the document root to a different disk) may help with organization and, in some cases, recovery planning, but it does not inherently reduce vulnerabilities. Option C (changing IPs) is not a security control; it may complicate blocking lists but doesn’t fix the underlying weakness. Option D (using LAMP) is an architectural choice, not a security measure by itself—an open-source stack can still be insecure if misconfigured or unpatched.

Therefore, CEH-aligned best practice is regular patching and updates.

In CEH v13 Information Security and Ethical Hacking Overview, a penetration tester is defined as a trusted, authorized security professional hired to simulate real-world attacks in order to identify and exploit vulnerabilities with explicit permission.

The primary objectives of a penetration tester are:

Identify weaknesses in systems, networks, and applications

Demonstrate real-world impact of vulnerabilities

Help organizations improve their security posture

Unlike malicious hackers (Option A) or malware authors (Options B and D), penetration testers operate under strict legal and ethical guidelines, following scopes of engagement and reporting findings responsibly.

CEH v13 emphasizes that penetration testing is proactive defense, not crime. Therefore, Option C accurately defines the role.

CEH’s Malware Analysis module outlines a structured approach:

Identify suspicious indicators (e.g., JavaScript, OpenAction)

Extract and analyze embedded objects

Determine behavior and exploit logic

PDFStreamDumper allows analysts to extract JavaScript code and embedded objects for detailed inspection.

Option B is correct.

Option A is useful but insufficient for deep analysis.

Option C only aids identification, not behavior understanding.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, Nmap's evasion techniques are discussed for bypassing or confusing Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and firewalls.

The -D option in Nmap is used to enable decoy scanning. It inserts false IP addresses in the scan to obfuscate the true origin of the scan.

This technique helps in masking the attacker’s IP and can confuse IDS logs.

Option Clarification:

A. -n/-R: Disables DNS resolution (-n) or uses reverse DNS (-R), does not evade detection.

B. -0N/-0X/-0G: Output formats (normal, XML, grepable), not related to evasion.

C. -T: Controls timing (e.g., -T0 is stealthy, -T5 is aggressive), but not explicitly for IDS evasion.

D. -D: Correct. Used for IDS/firewall evasion by using decoy IPs.

In CEH v13 Maintaining Access, stealth and persistence are key goals after compromise. Placing a backdoor in a file type excluded from resource maps (such as image metadata, configuration files, or uncommon extensions) reduces the likelihood of discovery by automated scanners and integrity checks.

Option D is correct because many security tools focus on executable or commonly accessed web files. Files excluded from resource maps are less likely to be scanned or monitored.

Option A increases detection risk due to frequent changes. Option B increases signature visibility. Option C still exposes the file to access logs and monitoring.

CEH v13 highlights that attackers often hide backdoors in non-obvious locations to avoid detection. Therefore, Option D is correct.

CEH v13 explains that the Deep Web contains content not indexed by search engines, including exposed databases, misconfigured portals, leaked credentials, and internal documents.

This makes it a critical area to assess unintended data exposure. The Deep Web is not primarily for attacker profiling or insider detection.

Thus, Option D is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) uses a hierarchical data structure similar to a directory tree. SQL databases use a relational structure with tables, rows, and columns.

Because of its hierarchical nature:

LDAP is excellent for parent-child relationships.

It struggles with representing many-to-many or many-to-one relationships efficiently.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration → LDAP Basics

SMTP enumeration involves probing a mail server to gather information about users and configurations. Two important SMTP commands used in enumeration are:

VRFY: Verifies whether a particular email address or user ID exists on the mail server.

EXPN: Reveals the actual addresses behind a mailing list or alias.

These commands allow attackers or penetration testers to enumerate valid user accounts or group memberships, which can later be targeted for phishing, spam, or brute-force attacks.

Incorrect Options:

B. Daily outgoing message limits are not typically disclosed via SMTP.

C. RCPT TO is used to designate a message recipient, but it doesn't enumerate open ports.

D. Mail proxy addresses are not revealed directly via SMTP enumeration.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 04: Enumeration

Section: “SMTP Enumeration Techniques”

Tool Reference: smtp-user-enum, Netcat

=

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The code shown in the image is indicative of a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack, where malicious JavaScript is injected into a web page via user input. In this case, the attacker includes:

%3Cscript%20src=...%3E — URL-encoded JavaScript tag to load a malicious script from an external source.

If the web application echoes this input back without sanitization, the script will execute in the context of the victim’s browser.

This allows the attacker to:

Steal cookies/session tokens

Perform actions on behalf of the victim

Redirect the victim to malicious websites

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 10: Web Application Hacking → Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)

In CEH v13 Module 11: Hacking Wireless Networks, wireless standards and their transmission ranges are discussed.

Actual Range Specs:

802.11a: Operates at 5 GHz, range up to ~75 ft indoors, much less than 150 ft due to poor wall penetration.

802.11b/g: Operate at 2.4 GHz, typically 150–300 ft indoors.

802.16 (WiMax): Wireless MAN technology with range up to 30 miles — correct for point-to-point outdoor line of sight.

Conclusion:

802.11a listed as 150–150 ft is incorrect.

Realistic effective range is up to 75 ft indoors, depending on obstructions and interference.

This overestimation makes Option D the wrong one.

Ransomware encrypts user data and extorts payment for restoration. CEH covers ransomware as a major threat in system hacking, highlighting encryption-based extortion as its defining behavior.

Burp Suite is a comprehensive web vulnerability scanner and testing suite widely used in penetration testing and ethical hacking.

Key features include:

Intercepting proxy: Allows inspection and modification of traffic between the browser and target server.

Session hijacking/testing tools

Intruder and Repeater modules for customized payload injection

Sequencer module for testing session token randomness

Extensibility through plugins and custom scripts

Incorrect Options:

A. Nmap is a network scanning tool, not used for intercepting web traffic.

C. CxSAST (Checkmarx) is a static application security testing (SAST) tool.

D. Wireshark is a packet analyzer but does not include intercepting proxy features or token testing.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Burp Suite as a Web Vulnerability Testing Tool”

CEH iLab: Using Burp Suite for Web App Testing

=

https://nmap.org/book/man-port-specification.html

NOTE: In my opinion, this is an absolutely wrong statement of the question. But you may come across a question with a similar wording on the exam. What does "fast" mean? If we want to increase the speed and intensity of the scan we can select the mode using the -T flag (0/1/2/3/4/5). At high -T values, we will sacrifice stealth and gain speed, but we will not limit functionality.

«nmap -T4 -F 10.10.0.0/24» This option is "correct" because of the -F flag.

-F (Fast (limited port) scan)

Specifies that you wish to scan fewer ports than the default. Normally Nmap scans the most common 1,000 ports for each scanned protocol. With -F, this is reduced to 100.

Technically, scanning will be faster, but just because we have reduced the number of ports by 10 times, we are just doing 10 times less work, not faster.

The ntpq utility provides detailed NTP peer information, synchronization states, offsets, delays, and strata. CEH specifically lists ntpq as the tool for querying NTP daemon status and enumerating peer relationships, making it essential for reconnaissance and lateral movement mapping.

In CEH v13 Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking, Gray Hat hackers are described as those who operate between ethical and unethical lines:

Gray Hat Characteristics:

Discover vulnerabilities without permission.

May explore or exploit them without malicious intent, but also without authorization.

May or may not disclose them after exploration.

Not fully black hat (malicious), nor white hat (authorized and ethical).

In this case, John explored sensitive employee data without authorization, even though he worked for the organization. That behavior places him in the gray hat category.

Option Clarification:

A. Cybercriminal: Generally linked to criminal activities for gain.

B. Black hat: Unauthorized access with malicious or financial intent.

C. White hat: Authorized ethical hackers.

D. Gray hat: Correct – Unauthorized, curious access without immediate harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) is an application layer protocol that facilitates communication in text. The chat process works on a client/server networking model. IRC clients are computer programs that users can install on their system or web-based applications running either locally in the browser or on a third-party server. These clients communicate with chat servers to transfer messages to other clients.

IRC is a plaintext protocol that is officially assigned port 194, according to IANA. However, running the service on this port requires running it with root-level permissions, which is inadvisable. As a result, the well-known port for IRC is 6667, a high-number port that does not require elevated privileges. However, an IRC server can also be configured to run on other ports as well.

You can't tell if an IRC server is designed to be malicious solely based on port number. Still, if you see an IRC server running on port a WKP such as 80, 8080, 53, 443, it's almost always going to be malicious; the only real reason for IRCD to be running on port 80 is to try to evade firewalls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_firewall

An application firewall is a form of firewall that controls input/output or system calls of an application or service. It operates by monitoring and blocking communications based on a configured policy, generally with predefined rule sets to choose from. The application firewall can control communications up to the OSI model's application layer, which is the highest operating layer, and where it gets its name. The two primary categories of application firewalls are network-based and host-based.

Application layer filtering operates at a higher level than traditional security appliances. This allows packet decisions to be made based on more than just source/destination IP Addresses or ports. It can also use information spanning across multiple connections for any given host.

Network-based application firewalls

Network-based application firewalls operate at the application layer of a TCP/IP stack. They can understand certain applications and protocols such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP), Domain Name System (DNS), or Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). This allows it to identify unwanted applications or services using a non-standard port or detect if an allowed protocol is being abused.

Host-based application firewalls

A host-based application firewall monitors application system calls or other general system communication. This gives more granularity and control but is limited to only protecting the host it is running on. Control is applied by filtering on a per-process basis. Generally, prompts are used to define rules for processes that have not yet received a connection. Further filtering can be done by examining the process ID of the owner of the data packets. Many host-based application firewalls are combined or used in conjunction with a packet filter.

The TCP three-way handshake is the foundational mechanism used to establish a reliable connection between two devices. The sequence is as follows:

The client sends a SYN (synchronize) packet to the server to initiate the connection.

The server replies with a SYN-ACK (synchronize-acknowledge) packet.

The client sends an ACK (acknowledge) packet back to the server.

Therefore, the connection starts with a SYN packet from the client.

Webhooks are one of a few ways internet applications will communicate with one another.

It allows you to send real-time data from one application to another whenever a given event happens.

For example, let’s say you’ve created an application using the Foursquare API that tracks when people check into your restaurant. You ideally wish to be able to greet customers by name and provide a complimentary drink when they check in.

What a webhook will is notify you any time someone checks in, therefore you’d be able to run any processes that you simply had in your application once this event is triggered.

The data is then sent over the web from the application wherever the event originally occurred, to the receiving application that handles the data.

Here’s a visual representation of what that looks like:

A webhook url is provided by the receiving application, and acts as a phone number that the other application will call once an event happens.

Only it’s more complicated than a phone number, because data about the event is shipped to the webhook url in either JSON or XML format. this is known as the “payload.”

Here’s an example of what a webhook url looks like with the payload it’s carrying:

What are Webhooks? Webhooks are user-defined HTTP callback or push APIs that are raised based on events triggered, such as comment received on a post and pushing code to the registry. A webhook allows an application to update other applications with the latest information. Once invoked, it supplies data to the other applications, which means that users instantly receive real-time information. Webhooks are sometimes called “Reverse APIs” as they provide what is required for API specification, and the developer should create an API to use a webhook. A webhook is an API concept that is also used to send text messages and notifications to mobile numbers or email addresses from an application when a specific event is triggered. For instance, if you search for something in the online store and the required item is out of stock, you click on the “Notify me” bar to get an alert from the application when that item is available for purchase. These notifications from the applications are usually sent through webhooks.

Social engineering is the term used for a broad range of malicious activities accomplished through human interactions. It uses psychological manipulation to trick users into making security mistakes or giving away sensitive information.

Social engineering attacks typically involve some form of psychological manipulation, fooling otherwise unsuspecting users or employees into handing over confidential or sensitive data. Commonly, social engineering involves email or other communication that invokes urgency, fear, or similar emotions in the victim, leading the victim to promptly reveal sensitive information, click a malicious link, or open a malicious file. Because social engineering involves a human element, preventing these attacks can be tricky for enterprises.

ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) is a Regional Internet Registry (RIR) that provides information about IP address allocations and autonomous systems in North America. It’s used for WHOIS lookups and footprinting in reconnaissance.

Zero Trust Networks The Zero Trust model is a security implementation that by default assumes every user trying to access the network is not a trusted entity and verifies every incoming connection before allowing access to the network.It strictly follows the principle, “Trust no one and validate before providing a cloud service or granting access permission.”It also allows companies to impose conditions, such as allowing employees to only access the appropriate resources required for their work role. (P.2997/2981)

Zero Trust is a strategic initiative that helps prevent successful data breaches by eliminating the concept of trust from an organization’s network architecture. Rooted in the principle of “never trust, always verify,” Zero Trust is designed to protect modern digital environments by leveraging network segmentation, preventing lateral movement, providing Layer 7 threat prevention, and simplifying granular user-access control.

ESP (Encapsulating Security Payload) in transport mode is used for end-to-end communication between hosts within the same LAN. It encrypts only the payload, not the header, ensuring confidentiality and integrity while maintaining efficient routing.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography

Quote:

“In ESP transport mode, only the data payload is encrypted, making it ideal for secure communication within a LAN where the IP header must remain intact for routing.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

B & C. Not valid IPSec modes.

D. AH tunnel mode ensures integrity but does not provide encryption.

=

The CEH Network Scanning module explains that ICMP Echo Requests are often filtered or blocked by firewalls, routers, or host-based security controls as a defensive measure to reduce reconnaissance exposure.

When systems fail to respond to ICMP Echo Requests but continue to function normally for other services, CEH indicates that this behavior typically means ICMP traffic is being blocked, not that the host is offline or compromised.

Option B is correct.

Option A would affect all services.

Option C lacks supporting indicators.

Option D is speculative and unreliable.

CEH emphasizes that ICMP filtering is common in hardened networks.

The CEH Cloud Computing module identifies cloud APIs as one of the most critical attack surfaces in public cloud environments. APIs control provisioning, configuration, authentication, and management of cloud resources.

A vulnerability in a cloud API can allow attackers to:

Bypass authentication

Escalate privileges

Access or modify cloud resources

Create or delete services

Option B is therefore correct.

Option A relates to availability, not API flaws.

Option C is managed by the provider and unrelated to APIs.

Option D would require key compromise, not just API weakness.

CEH strongly emphasizes API security as a top cloud risk.

In CEH’s Cloud Computing module, one of the most common real-world causes of cloud data exposure is misconfiguration, especially overly permissive network access controls. Cloud platforms commonly use constructs like security groups / firewall rules / network ACLs to define inbound and outbound access. CEH highlights that exposing sensitive services (databases, storage endpoints, admin panels) to the public internet—whether by “0.0.0.0/0” rules, overly broad ports, or unintended administrative access—frequently results in unauthorized access and data leakage even without sophisticated exploit chains.

Option D is therefore the most likely, because misconfigured security groups can directly expose customer data stores or management interfaces, enabling data theft through normal connectivity rather than exploiting a rare hypervisor flaw.

Option A (hypervisor side-channel attack) is advanced and less common; it typically requires high attacker capability and conditions not implied here. Option B (DoS) impacts availability, not confidentiality, so it doesn’t best explain data exposure. Option C (brute force passwords) is possible, but the question emphasizes an “unknown vulnerability” in the cloud environment—CEH teaching often frames “unknown vulnerability” in cloud incidents as misconfiguration or uncontrolled exposure rather than authentication guessing alone.

CEH countermeasures include least-privilege security group rules, segmentation, continuous configuration monitoring, cloud security posture management, and auditing publicly exposed resources.

CEH v13 highlights the importance of route tracing during internal reconnaissance to identify key infrastructure devices such as distribution switches, firewalls, and core routers. When a single IP address consistently appears as the penultimate hop across multiple network paths, this typically indicates that the device serves as a core router responsible for inter-VLAN or inter-subnet routing. Core routers aggregate traffic from various segments before forwarding to endpoint subnets, explaining why it appears before diverse destinations. CEH emphasizes recognizing core infrastructure because compromising such devices provides attackers with significant visibility and potential control over network-wide communications. DNS poisoning would affect name resolution, not hop patterns. Loopback misconfigurations would affect single hosts, not multiple segments. A transparent proxy would appear only for traffic routed through application-layer inspection, not all traceroute tests. The consistency across subnets strongly points to a centralized routing device.

Firewalls primarily operate at Layer 3 (Network) and Layer 4 (Transport) of the OSI model. They inspect:

IP headers (Layer 3)

TCP/UDP port numbers (Layer 4)

Application-specific data in Layer 7-aware firewalls (for application filtering)

By examining transport layer port numbers and application layer headers, firewalls can block or allow traffic based on services like HTTP (port 80), FTP (port 21), and others.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 13: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots

Quote:

“Firewalls filter traffic based on IP addresses, transport-layer port numbers, and application protocol headers to control access to services and applications.”

Incorrect Options:

B & C. Presentation and session layers are not relevant to firewall rule inspection.

D. Application layer doesn’t have port numbers; they are part of the transport layer.

=

The command usage that would best serve your objective to find where the NTP server obtains the time from and to trace the list of NTP servers connected to the network is ntptrace -n -m 5 192.168.1.1. This command usage works as follows:

ntptrace is a tool that determines where a given NTP server gets its time from, and follows the chain of NTP servers back to their master time source. For example, a stratum 0 server, which is a device that directly obtains the time from a physical source, such as an atomic clock or a GPS receiver1.

-n is a flag that outputs host IP addresses instead of host names. This can be useful if the host names are not resolvable or if the IP addresses are more informative1.

-m 5 is a flag that specifies the maximum number of hosts to be traced. This can be useful to limit the output and avoid tracing irrelevant or unreachable hosts1.

192.168.1.1 is the IP address of the NTP server in the demilitarized zone, which is the starting point of the trace. This can be useful to find out the source and the path of the time synchronization for the network system1.

By using this command usage, the output will show the IP addresses, the stratum, the offset, the sync distance, and the reference ID of each NTP server in the chain, up to five hosts. This can provide valuable information about the accuracy, the reliability, and the security of the time service for the network system1.

The other options are not as suitable as option D for the following reasons:

A. ntptrace -m 5 192.168.1.1: This option is similar to option D, but it does not use the -n flag, which means that it will output host names instead of IP addresses. This can be less useful if the host names are not resolvable or if the IP addresses are more informative1.

B. tptrace 192.1681.: This option is incorrect because it uses a wrong tool name and a wrong IP address. tptrace is not a valid tool name, and 192.1681. is not a valid IP address. The correct tool name is ntptrace, and the correct IP address is 192.168.1.11.

C. ntptrace -n localhost: This option is not effective because it uses localhost as the starting point of the trace, which means that it will only show the local host’s time source. This can be useful to check the local host’s time configuration, but it does not help to find out the time source and the trace of the NTP server in the demilitarized zone, which is the objective of this scenario1.

The scenario describes a method used to make a cryptographic key more secure by making it harder to brute-force. This process is called Key Stretching.

Key Stretching:

Takes a weak or short key and processes it through a function (often repeatedly) to produce a stronger, longer key.

Commonly used in password hashing (e.g., bcrypt, PBKDF2, scrypt).

Increases the computational time required to test each guess in a brute-force attack, effectively reducing attack feasibility.

Incorrect Options:

A. Key derivation function (KDF) is related but more general; key stretching is a specific technique often implemented within KDFs.

B. Key reinstallation is associated with WPA2 KRACK attacks.

C. Public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system of digital certificates, not a key strengthening technique.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 20: Cryptography

Section: “Password Hashing and Key Stretching Techniques”

Subsection: “bcrypt, PBKDF2, and Key Strengthening”

CEH iLab: Password Hashing and Cracking Simulations

In an SOA (Start of Authority) record, the fifth value represents the “Expire” interval — the time a secondary DNS server will keep trying to contact the primary server before considering the zone data stale or invalid.

SOA Format:

SOA Primary-NS Hostmaster (Serial Refresh Retry Expire Minimum-TTL)

Given SOA:

(200302028 3600 3600 604800 3600)

Serial: 200302028

Refresh: 3600 seconds

Retry: 3600 seconds

Expire: 604800 seconds = 7 days = 1 week

Minimum TTL: 3600

So, if the secondary DNS cannot contact the primary for 604800 seconds (1 week), it will stop serving that zone’s data.

aLTEr attacks are usually performed on LTE devices Attacker installs a virtual (fake) communication tower between two authentic endpoints intending to mislead the victim This virtual tower is used to interrupt the data transmission between the user and real tower attempting to hijack the active session.

https://alter-attack.net/media/breaking_lte_on_layer_two.pdf

The new aLTEr attack can be used against nearly all LTE connected endpoints by intercepting traffic and redirecting it to malicious websites together with a particular approach for Apple iOS devices.

This attack works by taking advantage of a style flaw among the LTE network — the information link layer (aka: layer-2) of the LTE network is encrypted with AES-CTR however it’s not integrity-protected, that is why an offender will modify the payload.

As a result, the offender is acting a classic man-in-the-middle wherever they’re movement as a cell tower to the victim.

A man-in-the-middle attack using forged ICMP and ARP spoofing is a type of network-level session hijacking attack where an attacker inserts their machine into the communication between a client and a server, making it seem like the packets are flowing through the original path. This technique is primarily used to reroute the packets and intercept or modify the data exchanged between the client and the server.

A man-in-the-middle attack using forged ICMP and ARP spoofing works as follows1:

The attacker sends a forged ICMP redirect message to the client, claiming to be the gateway. The ICMP redirect message tells the client to use the attacker’s machine as the next hop for reaching the server’s network. The client updates its routing table accordingly and starts sending packets to the attacker’s machine instead of the gateway.

The attacker also sends a forged ARP reply message to the client, claiming to be the server. The ARP reply message associates the attacker’s MAC address with the server’s IP address. The client updates its ARP cache accordingly and starts sending packets to the attacker’s MAC address instead of the server’s MAC address.

The attacker receives the packets from the client and forwards them to the server, acting as a relay. The attacker can also monitor, modify, or drop the packets as they wish. The server responds to the packets and sends them back to the attacker, who then forwards them to the client. The client and the server are unaware of the attacker’s presence and think they are communicating directly with each other.

Therefore, Jake is studying a man-in-the-middle attack using forged ICMP and ARP spoofing, which is a type of network-level session hijacking attack.

The Security Account Manager (SAM) file on Windows contains user account information, including password hashes. Hackers target this file to extract credentials for offline cracking using tools like L0phtCrack or Cain & Abel.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 4: Enumeration

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“The SAM file stores hashed user credentials. If attackers gain access to it, they can extract password hashes and perform brute-force or dictionary attacks offline.”

Common locations:

C:\Windows\System32\config\SAM

C:\Windows\Repair\SAM

SQL injection testing commonly involves using tautology-based payloads such as 1 OR 1=1, which force SQL queries to evaluate as true. CEH explains that this confirms improper input sanitization and exposes whether user-supplied fields directly influence database queries. The result often returns all records, indicating successful injection.

A service-based solution offered by an auditing firm would be the most appropriate type of vulnerability assessment solution for the large e-commerce organization, given their requirements. A service-based solution is a type of vulnerability assessment that is performed by external experts who have the skills, tools, and experience to conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the target system or network. A service-based solution can imitate the outside view of attackers, as the experts are not familiar with the internal details or configurations of the organization. A service-based solution can also perform well-organized inference-based testing, which is a type of testing that uses logical reasoning and deduction to identify and exploit vulnerabilities based on the information gathered from the target. A service-based solution can scan automatically against continuously updated databases, as the experts have access to the latest security intelligence and threat feeds. A service-based solution can also support multiple networks, as the experts can use different techniques and tools to scan different types of networks, such as wired, wireless, cloud, or hybrid12.

The other options are not as appropriate as option B for the following reasons:

A. Inference-based assessment solution: This option is not a type of vulnerability assessment solution, but a type of testing method that can be used by any solution. Inference-based testing is a testing method that uses logical reasoning and deduction to identify and exploit vulnerabilities based on the information gathered from the target. Inference-based testing can be performed by service-based, product-based, or tree-based solutions, depending on the scope, objectives, and resources of the assessment3.

C. Tree-based assessment approach: This option is not a type of vulnerability assessment solution, but a type of testing method that can be used by any solution. Tree-based testing is a testing method that uses a hierarchical structure to organize and prioritize the vulnerabilities based on their severity, impact, and exploitability. Tree-based testing can be performed by service-based, product-based, or inference-based solutions, depending on the scope, objectives, and resources of the assessment4.

D. Product-based solution installed on a private network: This option is a type of vulnerability assessment solution, but it may not meet all the requirements of the large e-commerce organization. A product-based solution is a type of vulnerability assessment that is performed by using software or hardware tools that are installed on the organization’s own network. A product-based solution can scan automatically against continuously updated databases, as the tools can be configured to download and apply the latest security updates and patches. However, a product-based solution may not imitate the outside view of attackers, as the tools may have limited access or visibility to the external network or the internet. A product-based solution may also not perform well-organized inference-based testing, as the tools may rely on predefined rules or signatures to detect and report vulnerabilities, rather than using logical reasoning and deduction. A product-based solution may also not support multiple networks, as the tools may be designed or optimized for a specific type of network, such as wired, wireless, cloud, or hybrid .

Union-based SQL injection is a technique that uses the UNION SQL operator to combine the results of the original query with the results of one or more additional queries. This allows attackers to:

Retrieve data from different database tables

Extend the result set returned to the web application

Exploit the application if both queries return the same number and type of columns

According to CEH v13:

UNION SELECT can be used to enumerate tables, extract user credentials, or display sensitive data.

It requires knowledge of the structure of the original query.

Incorrect Options:

A. Error-based injection extracts data from database error messages.

B. Boolean-based blind SQLi returns true/false results to infer data.

C. Blind SQLi (generic) relies on no visible output and uses inference techniques.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Types of SQL Injection Attacks”

Subsection: “Union-Based SQL Injection”

=

Information Gathering from Robots.txt File A website owner creates a robots.txt file to list the files or directories a web crawler should index for providing search results. Poorly written robots.txt files can cause the complete indexing of website files and directories. If confidential files and directories are indexed, an attacker may easily obtain information such as passwords, email addresses, hidden links, and membership areas. If the owner of the target website writes the robots.txt file without allowing the indexing of restricted pages for providing search results, an attacker can still view the robots.txt file of the site to discover restricted files and then view them to gather information. An attacker types URL/robots.txt in the address bar of a browser to view the target website’s robots.txt file. An attacker can also download the robots.txt file of a target website using the Wget tool. Certified Ethical Hacker(CEH) Version 11 pg 1650

CEH training emphasizes that mobile applications frequently mishandle local storage, leaving sensitive data such as tokens, passwords, API keys, or personal information unencrypted within SQLite databases, shared preferences, or flat-file storage. When encryption is absent or improperly implemented, attackers can directly access this data through filesystem extraction, Android Debug Bridge (ADB) access, physical device access, or rooted environments. CEH identifies “Insecure Data Storage” as one of the most critical mobile vulnerabilities because it bypasses server-side defenses entirely. Since the vulnerability specifically concerns data at rest, the most direct and effective exploitation method is to retrieve the locally stored unencrypted data. SQL injection (Option B) evaluates backend security, not device storage. XSS (Option C) is a web attack and unrelated to local encryption. Brute-forcing credentials (Option D) is unnecessary when sensitive information is already stored insecurely. Therefore, accessing local storage is the correct exploitation method.

In CEH v13 Module 06: Malware Threats, the Cyber Kill Chain is broken down into its seven stages:

Reconnaissance

Weaponization

Delivery

Exploitation

Installation

Command & Control

Actions on Objectives

Step 3 – Delivery:

Refers to the transmission of the malicious payload to the victim.

Can occur through email, web downloads, USB drives, etc.

Correct Example:

A. “An intruder sends a malicious attachment via email to a target” — This is delivery.

Other Options:

B. Weaponization

C. Exploitation

D. Installation

The most effective evasion technique to bypass the IDS signature detection while performing a SQL Injection attack is to leverage string concatenation to break identifiable keywords. This technique involves splitting SQL keywords or operators into smaller parts and joining them with string concatenation operators, such as ‘+’ or ‘||’. This way, the SQL query can still be executed by the database engine, but the IDS cannot recognize the keywords or operators as malicious, as they are hidden within strings. For example, the hacker could replace the keyword ‘OR’ with ‘O’||‘R’ or ‘O’+‘R’ in the SQL query, and the IDS would not be able to match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern12.

The other options are not as effective as option D for the following reasons:

A. Implement case variation by altering the case of SQL statements: This option is not effective because most SQL engines and IDS systems are case-insensitive, meaning that they treat SQL keywords and operators the same regardless of their case. Therefore, altering the case of SQL statements would not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern3.

B. Employ IP fragmentation to obscure the attack payload: This option is not applicable because IP fragmentation is a network-level technique that splits IP packets into smaller fragments to fit the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the network. IP fragmentation does not affect the content or structure of the SQL query, and it does not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to reassemble the fragments and match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern4.

C. Use Hex encoding to represent the SQL query string: This option is not feasible because Hex encoding is a method of representing binary data in hexadecimal format, such as ‘0x41’ for ‘A’. Hex encoding does not work for SQL queries, as the SQL engine would not be able to interpret the hexadecimal values as valid SQL syntax. Moreover, Hex encoding would not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to decode the hexadecimal values and match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern.

In CEH v13 Module 05: System Hacking, and Module 14: Access Control, Identity Management, and Cryptography, Single Sign-On (SSO) is defined as a system that allows users to authenticate once and gain access to multiple systems without re-entering credentials.

SSO uses a Central Authentication Server (CAS).

Common technologies: Kerberos, OAuth, SAML, AD Federation Services.

Improves user convenience and centralized credential management.

Google hacking or Google dorking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_hacking

It is a hacker technique that uses Google Search and other Google applications to find security holes in the configuration and computer code that websites are using. Google dorking could also be used for OSINT.

Search syntax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search

Google’s search engine has its own built-in query language. The following list of queries can be run to find a list of files, find information about your competition, track people, get information about SEO backlinks, build email lists, and of course, discover web vulnerabilities.

- [site:] - Search within a specific website

Android Debug Bridge (ADB) is a powerful debugging interface that, if misconfigured, allows attackers to execute commands remotely. CEH v13 identifies exposed ADB as a critical mobile security risk, especially in enterprise environments.

The most effective countermeasure is to disable ADB entirely, except when explicitly required for development or troubleshooting, and only within tightly controlled environments. This directly removes the attack vector.

VPNs and biometrics improve security but do not prevent ADB abuse. Updating MDM systems is important but does not eliminate the risk if ADB remains enabled.

CEH v13 explicitly recommends strict ADB control as a best practice. Therefore, Option C is the correct answer.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Steganography allows someone to hide data (like a spreadsheet or document) within another innocuous-looking file (like an image, video, or audio). This disguises the presence of the data entirely, allowing it to bypass standard data loss prevention (DLP) systems and firewalls, which look for file types and suspicious patterns.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Steganography and Covert Channels

CEH’s social engineering principles highlight psychological manipulation techniques such as authority, urgency, trust exploitation, and impersonation. In this scenario, the attacker leverages “perceived authority,” a powerful influence tactic where the social engineer poses as someone with legitimate power or sanctioned access—such as a technician, auditor, or vendor representative. CEH emphasizes that referencing real employee names, using technical terminology, and impersonating trusted third-party partners increases believability and reduces verification resistance. The receptionist’s acceptance of the attacker’s presence without verifying credentials matches classical authority-based exploitation. Leaked credentials, physical security logs, and network segmentation issues do not relate to human-layer social engineering. The situation clearly reflects the manipulation of trust and authority as described in CEH’s psychological attack vectors.

The host command in Linux is used for DNS lookup operations. The switch -t specifies the type of DNS record you are querying.

host -t a domain.com queries for A (Address) records, which return the IP address associated with a domain.

host -t ns queries for name servers (NS records).

host -t soa queries for the Start of Authority (SOA) record.

host -t AXFR attempts a zone transfer (not a standard resolution method and typically blocked).

Hence, option A correctly resolves a domain name to its IP address.

In CEH v13 Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking, Business Impact Analysis (BIA) is defined as a core component of the risk management process that helps identify and evaluate critical business functions, their dependencies, and the impact of downtime.

BIA is performed to:

Identify critical services and resources.

Determine the impact of their failure.

Define Recovery Time Objectives (RTO) and Recovery Point Objectives (RPO).

Prioritize systems for business continuity planning.

Option Clarification:

A. EPR: Emergency Plan Response – not a formal phase in BIA or risk analysis.

C. Risk Mitigation: Involves taking actions to reduce risks, but doesn't identify business-critical services.

D. DRP: Disaster Recovery Planning focuses on restoration, not impact assessment.

The CEH v13 content explains that stealth scanning involves modifying scan timing parameters to reduce packet frequency, randomize intervals, and avoid recognizable patterns typically flagged by intrusion detection systems. Slow, randomized timing—often achieved with Nmap’s T0 or T1 timing templates—prevents bursts of traffic and allows scans to blend into normal network noise. IDS/IPS systems tuned for high-volume events may fail to detect such gradual reconnaissance. Fast SYN scans generate distinctive patterns easily identified by security monitoring tools. UDP scans, especially across all ports, produce high traffic volume and are extremely noisy. Xmas scans, although sometimes used for stealth against stateless filters, are still signature-detectable and inappropriate when stealth over time is required. Therefore, applying slow, randomized timing options aligns with CEH-approved reconnaissance techniques for evading detection while enumerating open ports.

PKI uses public-key cryptography, which is widely used on the Internet to encrypt messages or

authenticate message senders. In public-key cryptography, a CA generates public and private

keys with the same algorithm simultaneously. The private key is held only by the subject (user,

company, or system) mentioned in the certificate, while the public key is made publicly available

in a directory that all parties can access. The subject keeps the private key secret and uses it to

decrypt the text encrypted by someone else using the corresponding public key (available in a

public directory). Thus, others encrypt messages for the user with the user's public key, and the user decrypts it with his/her private key.

This scenario describes Linear Cryptanalysis, a technique detailed in CEH v13 Cryptography. Linear cryptanalysis involves finding linear approximations that relate plaintext bits, ciphertext bits, and key bits using XOR operations. By analyzing a large number of known plaintext–ciphertext pairs, attackers can identify statistical biases that reveal information about the secret key.

CEH v13 explains that linear cryptanalysis differs from differential cryptanalysis in its approach. While differential cryptanalysis studies how differences in plaintext affect differences in ciphertext, linear cryptanalysis focuses on linear relationships and probability distributions.

The mention of XOR combinations and statistical analysis of plaintext–ciphertext pairs directly aligns with linear cryptanalysis. Brute-force attacks attempt all keys without analysis. Differential cryptanalysis focuses on input differences, not linear equations. Side-channel attacks exploit physical characteristics such as power consumption or timing.

Modern block ciphers like AES are designed to resist linear cryptanalysis by ensuring that linear approximations occur with probabilities close to random. CEH v13 highlights linear cryptanalysis as a foundational attack method used to evaluate cipher strength.

Therefore, Option C is correct.

In CEH v13 Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance, the OSINT Framework is introduced as a collection of free, open-source tools and resources to aid ethical hackers in passive reconnaissance.

Key Features of OSINT Framework:

Web-based visual tool that maps out links to open-source intelligence tools.

Allows collection of emails, domains, usernames, IPs, social media data, and more.

Focuses on passive footprinting to avoid detection.

Option Clarification:

A. WebSploit Framework: Used for man-in-the-middle attacks and web vulnerabilities.

B. Browser Exploitation Framework (BeEF): Browser-focused attack tool.

C. OSINT Framework: Correct — open-source intelligence and reconnaissance.

D. SpeedPhish Framework: Phishing simulation tool, not used for passive information gathering.

CEH v13 explains that reflected XSS occurs when malicious input supplied by an attacker is immediately returned in the HTTP response without sanitization. This type of XSS is typically exploited through a crafted URL containing embedded JavaScript payloads. When a victim clicks the link, the vulnerable server reflects the injected script back to the browser, executing it within the user’s session context. CEH emphasizes that reflected XSS relies on social engineering to deliver the payload, often via links sent through email, messaging platforms, or compromised pages. The goal may include stealing session cookies, redirecting users, or manipulating page content. Brute-forcing credentials (Option A) has no relation to XSS. SQL injection (Option C) targets backend databases, not client-side script execution. Directory traversal (Option D) concerns file path manipulation, not dynamic script injection. Therefore, embedding a malicious script in a URL is the correct method to exploit reflected XSS.

CEH v13 defines a Trojan as malware that appears as a legitimate, trusted software application while secretly executing malicious actions behind the scenes. Trojans rely on deception rather than replication, often masquerading as tools, utilities, updates, or installers. Once executed, they may install backdoors, steal credentials, exfiltrate data, or modify system settings. The defining characteristic emphasized in CEH is the legitimate-looking façade combined with hidden malicious intent, which matches the scenario perfectly. Spyware (Option B) focuses on monitoring and data collection but does not necessarily disguise itself as legitimate software. Worms (Option C) self-replicate across networks, which is not described here. Rootkits (Option D) hide system compromise but do not necessarily pose as legitimate software. Therefore, the malware described is a Trojan.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A TCP SYN flood is a type of Denial of Service (DoS) attack. The attacker sends a barrage of SYN packets with spoofed (random or unreachable) source IP addresses. The victim server replies with SYN/ACK, but the final ACK never arrives.

This results in:

The victim keeping the half-open connections in the queue.

The queue filling up, leading to new, legitimate requests being dropped.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 9: Denial-of-Service Attacks → TCP SYN Flood

Windows 2000 and newer systems use Kerberos as their default authentication protocol rather than NTLM or LM challenge/response over SMB. Kerberos is encrypted and does not rely on the older SMB logon exchange methods that L0phtCrack can sniff.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware and Password Attacks

Module 4: Enumeration

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Kerberos is the default authentication protocol in Windows 2000 and newer systems. It encrypts communication and is not vulnerable to the same sniffing attacks that work against LM/NTLM challenge-response mechanisms.”

Incorrect Options:

A: While a NIDS may detect traffic, it doesn't prevent sniffing.

C: Logons can be sniffed in older systems using NTLM.

D: L0phtCrack does not sniff web logons—it targets SMB and Windows logins.

This scenario describes steganographic sniffing, a highly sophisticated technique covered in CEH v13 Network Sniffing and Steganography. By embedding sensitive data inside legitimate image files—such as CT scans—attackers can intercept or exfiltrate patient information while avoiding detection.

Option D represents a steganography-based covert channel, which is extremely difficult to identify because:

The file appears legitimate

Standard encryption and IDS tools do not flag it

Medical images naturally contain large data volumes

Options A and B involve malware, which is more detectable. Option C involves text-based covert channels, which are easier to analyze than binary image embedding.

CEH v13 identifies steganography as one of the hardest data-hiding techniques to detect, making Option D correct.

1. AV (Asset value) = $300 + (14 * $10) = $440 - the cost of a hard drive plus the work of a recovery person, i.e.how much would it take to replace 1 asset? 10 hours for resorting the OS and soft + 4 hours for DB restore multiplies by hourly rate of the recovery person.

2. SLE (Single Loss Expectancy) = AV * EF (Exposure Factor) = $440 * 1 = $440

3. ARO (Annual rate of occurrence) = 1/3 (every three years, meaning the probability of occurring during 1 years is 1/3)

4. ALE (Annual Loss Expectancy) = SLE * ARO = 0.33 * $440 = $145.2

According to CEH v13 Security Operations and Incident Response, zero-day vulnerabilities pose one of the highest operational risks because exploits exist before official remediation is available. When active exploitation is observed and no vendor patch exists, immediate compensating controls must be deployed.

The first and most effective action is implementing virtual patching, typically through a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). CEH v13 defines virtual patching as a security measure that blocks exploitation attempts at the network or application layer without modifying the vulnerable software. This approach allows organizations to maintain service availability while reducing exposure.

Shutting down the server (Option A) may prevent exploitation but introduces unacceptable business disruption and is not recommended as a first response. Backups and incident response planning (Option C) are critical but do not actively prevent exploitation. Passive monitoring (Option D) allows attackers to continue exploiting the vulnerability unchecked.

CEH v13 emphasizes that virtual patching is the preferred first response for zero-day threats, especially when systems are mission-critical. It provides immediate risk reduction while allowing time for vendor patch development and controlled deployment.

The scenario describes a situation where a hacker infects an internet-facing server and leverages it to perform malicious activities such as sending spam emails, participating in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, or hosting spam content. This behavior is characteristic of a Botnet Trojan.

According to the CEH v13 Official Courseware and Study Guide:

A Botnet Trojan is a type of malware that transforms infected machines into bots (also called zombies), which can be remotely controlled by an attacker (bot herder or bot master).

These bots become part of a botnet — a network of compromised machines used for coordinated cyberattacks including:

Sending unsolicited spam emails (junk mail)

Participating in DDoS attacks

Hosting or distributing malware and phishing content

The infected machine can receive commands from a command-and-control (C&C) server and act in concert with other infected machines to amplify attacks or spread malware.

Incorrect Options:

B. Banking Trojans are designed specifically to steal financial data such as online banking credentials.

C. Turtle Trojans is not a valid classification in CEH v13 or cybersecurity literature (may be a distractor).

D. Ransomware Trojans encrypt data and demand a ransom for decryption, not typically used for junk mail or botnet activities.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 06: Malware Threats

Section: “Types of Trojans”

Subsection: “Botnet Trojans”

CEH v13 eBook or Study Guide — usually found under “Trojan Classifications by Payload”

Practical labs in CEH Engage and iLabs also demonstrate botnet functionality using tools like Zeus and Emotet in real-world botnet infection scenarios.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Containers share the same host operating system kernel, unlike VMs which run isolated kernels. This shared kernel increases the attack surface — a compromise in one container can potentially affect the entire host if kernel-level access is obtained.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications → Container Security

“Containers are less secure because they share the host kernel. Attackers compromising the container can exploit vulnerabilities in the shared OS.”

Side-channel attacks, as explained in CEH v13 OT and SCADA Security, extract sensitive information by observing physical characteristics of a system rather than exploiting software flaws directly. These characteristics may include power consumption, electromagnetic emissions, timing variations, or thermal output.

In SCADA environments, side-channel attacks are especially dangerous because they bypass traditional network defenses. The most reliable way to confirm such an attack is by analyzing hardware-level anomalies—such as unexpected power usage spikes or irregular signal emissions during normal device operations.

Option B directly aligns with CEH v13 guidance.

Options A, C, and D focus on software, cryptography, or network behavior, which are not primary indicators of side-channel exploitation.

Therefore, Option B is correct.

Sending an email to a known non-existent user is a reconnaissance technique used to:

Analyze bounce-back (NDR) messages.

Discover the email server’s operating system, filtering behavior, internal mail routing, and directory structure.

Reveal technologies such as Exchange, Postfix, etc.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 2: Footprinting and Reconnaissance

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Sending a message to an invalid address can reveal error messages or NDRs that leak internal system details, such as mail server versions, spam filtering technologies, and internal naming conventions.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Not applicable.

B/C: Not the purpose here.

E: Anti-virus testing requires a separate controlled method.

A thin Whois model is a type of data model that is used by some domain registrars for storing and looking up Whois information. In a thin Whois model, the registrar only stores the basic information about the domain, such as the domain name, the registrar name, the name servers, and the registration and expiration dates. The rest of the information, such as the contact details of the domain owner, the administrative contact, and the technical contact, is stored by the registry that manages the top-level domain (TLD) of the domain. For example, the registry for .com and .net domains is Verisign, and the registry for .org domains is Public Interest Registry. When a Whois lookup is performed on a domain that uses a thin Whois model, the registrar’s Whois server only returns the basic information and refers the query to the registry’s Whois server for the complete information1.

As a hacker, if you are unable to gather complete Whois information from the registrar for a particular set of data, it might be because the domain’s registrar is using a thin Whois model and the registry’s Whois server is not responding or providing the information. This could be due to various reasons, such as network issues, server errors, rate limits, privacy policies, or legal restrictions. Therefore, the probable data model being utilized by the domain’s registrar for storing and looking up Whois information is a thin Whois model working correctly.

Static Network Address Translation (Static NAT) allows a single private IP address to be mapped to a single public IP address. This one-to-one mapping ensures that the same internal machine is always reachable through the same external IP address, which is crucial for "server publishing" — making internal servers (e.g., web servers, FTP servers) accessible from the internet.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 03: Scanning Networks

Topic: Network Address Translation

Section: Types of NAT

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Static NAT provides a fixed translation of a private IP address to a public IP address. It is commonly used when an internal server must always be accessible from the Internet using a consistent IP address — this is known as server publishing.”

Incorrect Options:

A. Overloading PAT: Multiple private IPs share a single public IP using port numbers — not suited for static mappings.

B. Dynamic PAT: Similar to overloading; used for outbound traffic only.

C. Dynamic NAT: Assigns a public IP from a pool; the mapping can change, not suitable for server publishing.

According to the CEH Network Scanning module, a SYN scan works by analyzing TCP handshake responses.

SYN → SYN/ACK = Port OPEN

SYN → RST = Port CLOSED

No response = FILTERED

Option A is correct.

CEH emphasizes SYN scanning as stealthy because the handshake is never completed.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

In a MAC flooding attack, tools like macof (shown in the image) rapidly generate a large number of Ethernet frames with spoofed source MAC addresses. These are sent to the switch to overflow its CAM (Content Addressable Memory) table.

Once the CAM table is full:

The switch can no longer learn new MAC-to-port associations.

It fails open and starts broadcasting all incoming traffic to all ports.

This causes the switch to act like a hub.

Consequently, the attacker can:

Sniff traffic that would otherwise be switched.

Intercept data not destined for their system.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing → Switch-Based Attacks → MAC Flooding

Incorrect Options:

B: A switch typically does not crash but reverts to hub behavior.

C: There is no factory default override behavior like this.

D: Packets are not dropped—this would defeat the attack’s purpose.

A DNS zone file contains resource records (RRs) that define mappings and configurations for domains and subdomains. The standard records found in a zone file include:

SOA (Start of Authority): Indicates the beginning of the zone file.

NS (Name Server): Specifies the authoritative name servers.

A (Address): Maps hostnames to IPv4 addresses.

MX (Mail Exchange): Specifies mail servers.

These records are essential for the DNS resolution process and mail routing.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 3: DNS Enumeration

Topic: DNS Record Types

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A zone file contains all the resource records including SOA, NS, A, and MX. These define name server authority, IP resolution, and mail server routing.”

Incorrect Options:

A: DNS is a protocol, not a resource record.

B: PTR is for reverse DNS, typically in a separate reverse zone file.

C: AXFR is a DNS transfer mechanism, not an RR in the zone file.

Replay Attack could be a variety of security attack to the info sent over a network.

In this attack, the hacker or a person with unauthorized access, captures the traffic and sends communication to its original destination, acting because the original sender. The receiver feels that it’s Associate in Nursing genuine message however it’s really the message sent by the aggressor. the most feature of the Replay Attack is that the consumer would receive the message double, thence the name, Replay Attack.

Prevention from Replay Attack :

1. Timestamp technique –

Prevention from such attackers is feasible, if timestamp is employed at the side of the info. Supposedly, the timestamp on an information is over a precise limit, it may be discarded, and sender may be asked to send the info once more.

2. Session key technique –

Another way of hindrance, is by victimisation session key. This key may be used one time (by sender and receiver) per dealing, and can’t be reused.

Adversaries could decide to build an possible or file difficult to find or analyze by encrypting, encoding, or otherwise obfuscating its contents on the system or in transit. this is often common behavior which will be used across totally different platforms and therefore the network to evade defenses.

Payloads may be compressed, archived, or encrypted so as to avoid detection. These payloads may be used throughout Initial Access or later to mitigate detection. typically a user’s action could also be needed to open and Deobfuscate/Decode Files or info for User Execution. The user can also be needed to input a parole to open a parole protected compressed/encrypted file that was provided by the mortal. Adversaries can also used compressed or archived scripts, like JavaScript.

Portions of files can even be encoded to cover the plain-text strings that will otherwise facilitate defenders with discovery. Payloads can also be split into separate, ostensibly benign files that solely reveal malicious practicality once reassembled.

Adversaries can also modify commands dead from payloads or directly via a Command and Scripting Interpreter. surroundings variables, aliases, characters, and different platform/language specific linguistics may be wont to evade signature based mostly detections and application management mechanisms.

Public-key cryptography, or asymmetric cryptography, is a cryptographic system that uses pairs of keys: public keys (which may be known to others), and private keys (which may never be known by any except the owner). The generation of such key pairs depends on cryptographic algorithms which are based on mathematical problems termed one-way functions. Effective security requires keeping the private key private; the public key can be openly distributed without compromising security.

In such a system, any person can encrypt a message using the intended receiver's public key, but that encrypted message can only be decrypted with the receiver's private key. This allows, for instance, a server program to generate a cryptographic key intended for a suitable symmetric-key cryptography, then to use a client's openly-shared public key to encrypt that newly generated symmetric key. The server can then send this encrypted symmetric key over an insecure channel to the client; only the client can decrypt it using the client's private key (which pairs with the public key used by the server to encrypt the message). With the client and server both having the same symmetric key, they can safely use symmetric key encryption (likely much faster) to communicate over otherwise-insecure channels. This scheme has the advantage of not having to manually pre-share symmetric keys (a fundamentally difficult problem) while gaining the higher data throughput advantage of symmetric-key cryptography.

With public-key cryptography, robust authentication is also possible. A sender can combine a message with a private key to create a short digital signature on the message. Anyone with the sender's corresponding public key can combine that message with a claimed digital signature; if the signature matches the message, the origin of the message is verified (i.e., it must have been made by the owner of the corresponding private key).

Public key algorithms are fundamental security primitives in modern cryptosystems, including applications and protocols which offer assurance of the confidentiality, authenticity and non-repudiability of electronic communications and data storage. They underpin numerous Internet standards, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS), S/MIME, PGP, and GPG. Some public key algorithms provide key distribution and secrecy (e.g., Diffie–Hellman key exchange), some provide digital signatures (e.g., Digital Signature Algorithm), and some provide both (e.g., RSA). Compared to symmetric encryption, asymmetric encryption is rather slower than good symmetric encryption, too slow for many purposes. Today's cryptosystems (such as TLS, Secure Shell) use both symmetric encryption and asymmetric encryption.

Just like any other service that accepts usernames and passwords for logging in, AWS users are vulnerable to social engineering attacks from attackers. fake emails, calls, or any other method of social engineering, may find yourself with an AWS users’ credentials within the hands of an attacker.

If a user only uses API keys for accessing AWS, general phishing techniques could still use to gain access to other accounts or their pc itself, where the attacker may then pull the API keys for aforementioned AWS user.

With basic opensource intelligence (OSINT), it’s usually simple to collect a list of workers of an organization that use AWS on a regular basis. This list will then be targeted with spear phishing to do and gather credentials. an easy technique may include an email that says your bill has spiked 500th within the past 24 hours, “click here for additional information”, and when they click the link, they’re forwarded to a malicious copy of the AWS login page designed to steal their credentials.

An example of such an email will be seen within the screenshot below. it’s exactly like an email that AWS would send to you if you were to exceed the free tier limits, except for a few little changes. If you clicked on any of the highlighted regions within the screenshot, you’d not be taken to the official AWS web site and you’d instead be forwarded to a pretend login page setup to steal your credentials.

These emails will get even more specific by playing a touch bit additional OSINT before causing them out. If an attacker was ready to discover your AWS account ID on-line somewhere, they could use methods we at rhino have free previously to enumerate what users and roles exist in your account with none logs contact on your side. they could use this list to more refine their target list, further as their emails to reference services they will know that you often use.

For reference, the journal post for using AWS account IDs for role enumeration will be found here and the journal post for using AWS account IDs for user enumeration will be found here.

During engagements at rhino, we find that phishing is one in all the fastest ways for us to achieve access to an AWS environment.

Social engineering is a non-technical attack that manipulates human behavior to gain access to systems or data. It often involves deception (e.g., phishing, pretexting, baiting) and requires no technical expertise or tools, making it a low-tech yet highly effective method.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 9: Social Engineering

Quote:

“Social engineering exploits human psychology and trust to gain unauthorized access. It is considered a low-tech method because it does not require technical means.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

B. Eavesdropping may require technical tools to intercept data.

C. Scanning involves active use of tools to find vulnerabilities.

D. Sniffing is technical and requires tools to capture network traffic.

CEH v13 identifies spear-phishing as one of the most effective and targeted social engineering methods. It involves crafting highly personalized messages that reference real events, internal processes, or upcoming activities to build credibility and reduce suspicion. In this scenario, referencing board meetings—an event executive assistants frequently handle—creates a believable and urgent context for the request. CEH emphasizes that personalization significantly increases success rates because recipients perceive the sender as someone with legitimate access to internal information. A phone call impersonating IT support (Option B) is less convincing for retrieving agenda access-specific credentials. Mass phishing (Option C) lacks personalization and is easily flagged. LinkedIn social engineering (Option D) is long-term and less effective for obtaining immediate credentials. Therefore, a tailored spear-phishing email is the most effective approach.

https://book.hacktricks.xyz/pentesting-web/csrf-cross-site-request-forgery

Cross-site request forgery (also known as CSRF) is a web security vulnerability that allows an attacker to induce users to perform actions that they do not intend to perform.

This is done by making a logged in user in the victim platform access an attacker controlled website and from there execute malicious JS code, send forms or retrieve "images" to the victims account.

In order to be able to abuse a CSRF vulnerability you first need to find a relevant action to abuse (change password or email, make the victim follow you on a social network, give you more privileges...). The session must rely only on cookies or HTTP Basic Authentication header, any other header can't be used to handle the session. An finally, there shouldn't be unpredictable parameters on the request.

Several counter-measures could be in place to avoid this vulnerability. Common defenses:

- SameSite cookies: If the session cookie is using this flag, you may not be able to send the cookie from arbitrary web sites.

- Cross-origin resource sharing: Depending on which kind of HTTP request you need to perform to abuse the relevant action, you may take int account the CORS policy of the victim site. Note that the CORS policy won't affect if you just want to send a GET request or a POST request from a form and you don't need to read the response.

- Ask for the password user to authorise the action.

- Resolve a captcha

- Read the Referrer or Origin headers. If a regex is used it could be bypassed form example with:

http://mal.net?orig=http://example.com (ends with the url)

http://example.com.mal.net (starts with the url)

- Modify the name of the parameters of the Post or Get request

- Use a CSRF token in each session. This token has to be send inside the request to confirm the action. This token could be protected with CORS.

CEH defines botnets as networks of compromised machines controlled remotely to perform coordinated activities such as DDoS attacks, spam campaigns, and credential theft. Systems showing outbound connections to unknown IPs and participating in mass spam dissemination are characteristic indicators of botnet infection.

To start the Computer Management Console from command line just type compmgmt.msc /computer:computername in your run box or at the command line and it should automatically open the Computer Management console.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPsec

Internet Protocol Security (IPsec) is a secure network protocol suite that authenticates and encrypts the packets of data to provide secure encrypted communication between two computers over an Internet Protocol network. It is used in virtual private networks (VPNs).

IPsec includes protocols for establishing mutual authentication between agents at the beginning of a session and negotiation of cryptographic keys to use during the session. IPsec can protect data flows between a pair of hosts (host-to-host), between a pair of security gateways (network-to-network), or between a security gateway and a host (network-to-host). IPsec uses cryptographic security services to protect communications over Internet Protocol (IP) networks. It supports network-level peer authentication, data-origin authentication, data integrity, data confidentiality (encryption), and replay protection.

The initial IPv4 suite was developed with few security provisions. As a part of the IPv4 enhancement, IPsec is a layer 3 OSI model or internet layer end-to-end security scheme. In contrast, while some other Internet security systems in widespread use operate above layer 3, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS) that operates at the Transport Layer and Secure Shell (SSH) that operates at the Application layer, IPsec can automatically secure applications at the IP layer.

The command C. Hping3 -S 192.168.1.1 -a 192.168.1.254 -p 22 -flood is the correct one to spoof IP addresses for anonymity during probing. This command sends SYN packets (-S) to the target IP 192.168.1.1 with a spoofed source IP (-a) 192.168.1.254 on port 22 (-p) and floods the target with packets (-flood). This way, the CEH can hide his real IP address and avoid detection by the target’s firewall or IDS12.

The other commands are incorrect for the following reasons:

A. Hping3 -110.0.0.25 --ICMP: This command sends ICMP packets (–ICMP) to the target IP 10.0.0.25, but does not spoof the source IP. Therefore, the CEH’s real IP address will be exposed to the target.

B. Nmap -sS -Pn -n -vw --packet-trace -p- --script discovery -T4: This command performs a stealthy SYN scan (-sS) on all ports (-p-) of the target without pinging it (-Pn) or resolving DNS names (-n). It also enables verbose output (-v), packet tracing (–packet-trace), and discovery scripts (–script discovery) with an aggressive timing (-T4). However, this command does not spoof the source IP, and in fact, reveals more information about the scan to the target by using packet tracing and discovery scripts.

D. Hping3-210.0.0.25-p 80: This command sends TCP packets (default) to the target IP 10.0.0.25 on port 80 (-p), but does not spoof the source IP. Therefore, the CEH’s real IP address will be exposed to the target.

CEH v13 highlights behavioral analytics as one of the most effective techniques for identifying ambiguous or stealthy threats such as data exfiltration, command-and-control traffic, and insider abuse. When interactions appear suspicious but not definitively malicious, behavioral profiling provides the most direct visibility.

Behavioral analytics tools establish a baseline of normal system and network behavior, including typical communication patterns, data transfer volumes, destinations, and timing. Deviations from this baseline trigger alerts, allowing analysts to detect previously unknown threats without relying on signatures.

Option C is the most appropriate because it both identifies anomalies and supports continuous mitigation. A full zero-trust shutdown (Option A) is disruptive. Forensics (Option B) is reactive and better suited after confirmation of compromise. Training (Option D) does not address system-level interactions.

CEH v13 emphasizes that modern attacks often blend into normal traffic, making behavioral analysis essential. Therefore, Option C is the correct answer.

Gathering Information using Reverse Image Search Reverse image search helps an attacker in tracking the original source and details of images, such as photographs, profile pictures, and memes Attackers can use online tools such as Google Image Search, TinEye Reverse Image Search, and Yahoo Image Search to perform reverse

This scenario precisely matches Time-Based Blind SQL Injection, a technique detailed in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking. When applications suppress error messages and sanitize outputs, attackers rely on response timing to infer whether injected SQL statements are executed.

In time-based SQL injection, the attacker injects database-specific delay functions (such as WAITFOR DELAY, DBMS_LOCK.SLEEP, or SLEEP()). If the injected condition is true, the database pauses execution, causing a noticeable delay.

The key indicators described—no visible output but increased response time—are classic signs of time-based SQL injection. CEH v13 explains that this method is particularly useful when:

Errors are hidden

UNION queries fail

Output is not reflected

Union-based and out-of-band SQL injections require data exfiltration channels or visible outputs, which are absent here. “Heavy query-based” is not a formal CEH classification.

Thus, Option A is the correct answer.

CEH v13 stresses that IoT-to-OT convergence is one of the most dangerous architectures in critical infrastructure environments. IoT devices often lack strong security controls and become ideal entry points for lateral movement into OT systems controlling physical processes.

The immediate priority is to secure the communication boundary between IoT and OT systems. Implementing strong encryption, authentication, and access control ensures that even if an IoT device is compromised, it cannot be used as a pivot point. CEH v13 explicitly recommends network segmentation and secure communication channels as first-response containment measures.

Penetration testing (Option A) is valuable but time-consuming and not an immediate mitigation. ML-based tools (Option C) require training time and are not instant safeguards. IPS deployment (Option D) helps detect attacks but does not prevent credential abuse or trusted-path exploitation between IoT and OT layers.

By enforcing secure protocols, certificates, and authentication mechanisms, the organization reduces attack surface immediately. Thus, Option B is correct.

The host discovery technique that the tester should use is TCP SYN Ping Scan. This technique sends a TCP SYN packet to a specified port on the target host and waits for a response. If the host responds with a TCP SYN/ACK packet, it means the host is alive and the port is open. If the host responds with a TCP RST packet, it means the host is alive but the port is closed. If the host does not respond at all, it means the host is either dead or filtered by a firewall12. TCP SYN Ping Scan can bypass firewall restrictions because it mimics the initial stage of a TCP three-way handshake, which is a common and legitimate network activity. Therefore, most firewalls will allow TCP SYN packets to pass through and reach the target host, unless they are configured to block specific ports or IP addresses3. TCP SYN Ping Scan can also accurately identify live systems because it does not rely on ICMP, which may be blocked or rate-limited by some firewalls or routers.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as TCP SYN Ping Scan for the following reasons:

A. UDP Ping Scan: This technique sends a UDP packet to a specified port on the target host and waits for a response. If the host responds with an ICMP Port Unreachable message, it means the host is alive but the port is closed. If the host does not respond at all, it means the host is either dead, the port is open, or the packet is filtered by a firewall12. UDP Ping Scan may not bypass firewall restrictions because some firewalls may block or drop UDP packets, especially if they are sent to uncommon or reserved ports. UDP Ping Scan may also not accurately identify live systems because it cannot distinguish between open ports and filtered packets, and it may generate false positives or negatives due to packet loss or rate-limiting.

B. ICMP ECHO Ping Scan: This technique sends an ICMP ECHO Request packet to the target host and waits for an ICMP ECHO Reply packet. If the host responds with an ICMP ECHO Reply packet, it means the host is alive. If the host does not respond at all, it means the host is either dead or filtered by a firewall12. ICMP ECHO Ping Scan may not bypass firewall restrictions because some firewalls may block or drop ICMP packets, especially if they are sent to prevent ping sweeps or denial-of-service attacks. ICMP ECHO Ping Scan may also not accurately identify live systems because it may generate false positives or negatives due to packet loss or rate-limiting.

C. ICMP Timestamp Ping Scan: This technique sends an ICMP Timestamp Request packet to the target host and waits for an ICMP Timestamp Reply packet. If the host responds with an ICMP Timestamp Reply packet, it means the host is alive. If the host does not respond at all, it means the host is either dead or filtered by a firewall12. ICMP Timestamp Ping Scan may not bypass firewall restrictions because some firewalls may block or drop ICMP packets, especially if they are sent to prevent ping sweeps or denial-of-service attacks. ICMP Timestamp Ping Scan may also not accurately identify live systems because it may generate false positives or negatives due to packet loss or rate-limiting.

CEH v13 highlights HTML smuggling as a modern technique used to bypass perimeter defenses by leveraging browser-side execution. Instead of downloading a malware file directly—which firewalls and IDS can detect—an attacker embeds obfuscated JavaScript or HTML within an attachment. When the victim opens the file, the browser reconstructs the payload locally using APIs like Blob or URL.createObjectURL. This method avoids external network transfers during the payload creation stage, allowing it to bypass content filters, sandboxing, and inline inspection tools. CEH emphasizes that HTML smuggling is especially dangerous because it operates within the browser environment, which security appliances implicitly trust. Port forwarding (Option B) relates to tunneling traffic, not file reconstruction. XSS (Option C) requires injecting scripts into web pages, not delivering malware. HTTP header spoofing (Option D) manipulates request metadata, not payload construction. Therefore, HTML smuggling precisely matches the described behavior.

CEH v13 explains that Side-Channel Attacks exploit physical characteristics of cryptographic devices—such as power consumption, timing variations, electromagnetic leakage, or acoustic emissions—to infer confidential data like encryption keys. These attacks do not break the cryptographic algorithm itself but instead analyze unintended signals produced during computation. The scenario describes a classic power analysis and timing analysis attack, where the attacker monitors fluctuations during encryption operations on a smart card. CEH details how Differential Power Analysis (DPA) and Simple Power Analysis (SPA) allow attackers to extract secret keys by statistically correlating measured power traces to cryptographic operations. This type of attack is extremely dangerous because it bypasses mathematical strength and targets hardware implementation flaws. Options A, C, and D do not relate to side-channel exploitation. CEH specifically categorizes this method as observing hardware emissions to deduce secrets, making Option B the most accurate match.

CEH v13 distinguishes between vertical and horizontal privilege escalation. Vertical escalation occurs when an attacker moves upward in the hierarchy of privileges—such as from a regular user to an administrator or root—by exploiting vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, or insecure privilege boundaries. This allows the attacker to perform tasks that were previously restricted, such as modifying system settings, accessing sensitive data, installing malware, or controlling the entire environment. Horizontal escalation, on the other hand, involves accessing another user’s resources at the same privilege level, which the other options describe. Exploiting unquoted service paths or weak access controls may facilitate privilege abuse, but they do not inherently elevate the user to a higher privilege tier unless they specifically lead to administrative execution. The scenario that aligns perfectly with the CEH definition of vertical privilege escalation is the escalation from regular user to administrator.

In a Windows system, a Security Identifier (SID) uniquely identifies each user and group. The SID format is:

S-1-5-21--

The Relative Identifier (RID) is the last component in the SID string.

According to Microsoft and CEH v13:

RID 500 → Built-in Administrator account

RID 501 → Guest account

RIDs > 1000 → Regular user accounts

In the given image, the SID:

s-1-5-21-1125394485-807628933-54978560-500chang

has a RID of 500, indicating the built-in administrator account.

From CEH v13:

Module 4: Enumeration

Topic: SID Enumeration

CEH v13 States:

“When enumerating Windows systems, the account with RID 500 is always the default Administrator account, unless renamed. Attackers often target this account due to its elevated privileges.”

Incorrect Options:

All others have RIDs not equal to 500 (e.g., 100, 652, 412, etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing

Phishing is a type of social engineering attack often used to steal user data, including login credentials and credit card numbers. It occurs when an attacker, masquerading as a trusted entity, dupes a victim into opening an email, instant message, or text message. The recipient is then tricked into clicking a malicious link, which can lead to the installation of malware, the freezing of the system as part of a ransomware attack, or the revealing of sensitive information.

An attack can have devastating results. For individuals, this includes unauthorized purchases, the stealing of funds, or identify theft.

Moreover, phishing is often used to gain a foothold in corporate or governmental networks as a part of a larger attack, such as an advanced persistent threat (APT) event. In this latter scenario, employees are compromised in order to bypass security perimeters, distribute malware inside a closed environment, or gain privileged access to secured data.

An organization succumbing to such an attack typically sustains severe financial losses in addition to declining market share, reputation, and consumer trust. Depending on the scope, a phishing attempt might escalate into a security incident from which a business will have a difficult time recovering.

MAC flooding is a Layer 2 attack in which an attacker sends a large number of fake MAC addresses to a switch, filling up its CAM (Content Addressable Memory) table. Once the table is full:

The switch enters “fail-open” mode and broadcasts traffic to all ports

The attacker can then sniff sensitive traffic

This attack effectively turns a switch into a hub, facilitating data sniffing.

Incorrect Options:

A. Evil twin is a wireless attack using rogue access points.

B. DNS cache flooding corrupts DNS entries, unrelated to Ethernet.

D. DDoS attacks are about overwhelming systems/services, not Layer 2 memory overflows.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 11: Sniffing

Section: “Switch Port Stealing and MAC Flooding”

Subsection: “Layer 2 Attacks and CAM Table Poisoning”

=

Reconnaissance is the first phase of ethical hacking and also part of the cyber kill chain. It involves gathering publicly available information about a target, such as employee names, company structure, and branding, which is later used in social engineering or phishing attacks.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 2: Footprinting and Reconnaissance

Quote:

“Reconnaissance involves gathering information from public sources such as websites, social networks, and press releases. This is used to craft targeted phishing messages or exploit organizational weaknesses.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A & B. Not formal terms in ethical hacking.

D. Enumeration involves interacting with systems to extract technical data.

CEH’s approach to suspected compromise aligns with an incident-handling mindset: containment first, then analysis and remediation. In IoT and OT-adjacent environments (smart city infrastructure, SCADA-like components, embedded controllers), CEH emphasizes that suspicious external communications and unexplained open ports may indicate compromise, misconfiguration, exposed management services, or implanted malware/backdoors. Because IoT endpoints often have limited logging and are difficult to reimage safely, the safest next step is to isolate the suspected device to prevent further data exfiltration, command-and-control activity, or lateral movement to other city systems.

Option A best matches CEH guidance: isolate the device and investigate its firmware, services, and configuration, including checking for unauthorized binaries, altered firmware images, insecure default services, and hardcoded credentials. This also preserves evidence and reduces the blast radius.

Option C (blocking the external IP) can be helpful, but it’s a partial control: attackers can rotate infrastructure, and the device could still be compromised internally. Option B (full network pen test) is too broad and delays containment when a specific high-risk indicator is already present. Option D (attempting a reverse connection) crosses into active exploitation behavior and is not an appropriate “next step” in a defensive investigation; CEH methodology stresses authorized, controlled testing and prioritizes risk reduction over interacting with suspicious external hosts.

Thus, CEH-aligned best practice is immediate isolation and firmware-level investigation.

CEH v13 explains that WPA2-Enterprise replaces the static, shared password model of WPA2-Personal with a centralized authentication system that relies on the 802.1X framework. The essential component of this architecture is RADIUS integrated with EAP, which manages user authentication, device identity verification, and dynamic session key generation. RADIUS acts as the backend authentication server, while EAP provides a flexible authentication framework supporting certificates, smartcards, or credentials. This combination allows organizations to enforce per-user access control policies, revoke individual users without changing network-wide passwords, and generate unique Pairwise Master Keys (PMKs) for every authenticated session. CEH highlights that one of the major advantages of WPA2-Enterprise is its ability to produce unique encryption keys for each client, preventing key reuse and mitigating lateral movement if one device is compromised. Certificate-based EAP types such as EAP-TLS introduce mutual authentication, ensuring both client and server validate each other’s identity before allowing network access. This significantly increases security posture compared to PSK networks, which cannot scale securely for large enterprise deployments.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Footprinting and Reconnaissance module defines Google Hacking, also known as Google Dorking, as the use of advanced search operators to uncover sensitive information unintentionally exposed on the public internet. This technique remains passive, making it ideal during early reconnaissance.

Google Hacking can reveal:

Exposed configuration files

Backup files (.bak, .old, .zip)

Error messages and stack traces

Source code fragments and scripting errors

These findings often indicate coding weaknesses or insecure configurations within a web application. CEH explicitly highlights Google Dorking as an effective way to identify web application weaknesses without scanning or exploiting the target directly.

Option C is correct because Google Hacking is commonly used to identify coding and configuration weaknesses exposed through indexed files.

Option A may be possible indirectly but is not the primary justification.

Option B is incorrect because Google does not index the Deep Web.

Option D involves internal network discovery, which Google Hacking cannot directly achieve.

CEH emphasizes Google Hacking as a powerful passive reconnaissance technique for discovering exposed vulnerabilities.

Password cracking is a core component of the system hacking phase. CEH materials highlight that once password hashes are obtained, attackers often perform offline cracking to avoid detection and bypass account lockout policies. Tools like Hashcat make use of hardware acceleration—specifically, GPU or multi-core CPU computing—to significantly increase cracking throughput. Hardware acceleration allows the system to perform thousands to millions of hash calculations simultaneously, dramatically improving cracking efficiency compared to traditional CPU-bound methods. While dumping SAM contents is part of credential extraction, it is not the optimization described in the scenario. Dictionary rules influence cracking strategy but not raw speed. NetBIOS spoofing is unrelated to password cracking. The emphasis here is on maximizing computational power to accelerate the hash-cracking process, aligning directly with CEH’s explanation of hardware-accelerated offline cracking techniques.

A hybrid encryption system is a system that combines the advantages of both asymmetric and symmetric encryption algorithms. Asymmetric encryption, such as RSA, uses a pair of keys: a public key and a private key, which are mathematically related but not identical. Asymmetric encryption can provide key exchange, authentication, and non-repudiation, but it is slower and less efficient than symmetric encryption. Symmetric encryption, such as AES, uses a single key to encrypt and decrypt data. Symmetric encryption is faster and more efficient than asymmetric encryption, but it requires a secure way to share the key.

In a hybrid encryption system, RSA encryption is used for key exchange, and AES encryption is used for data encryption. This way, the system can benefit from the security of RSA and the speed of AES. However, the system also depends on the key sizes of both algorithms, which affect the security and performance of the system.

The key size of RSA encryption determines the number of bits in the public and private keys. The larger the key size, the more secure the encryption, but also the slower the key generation and encryption/decryption processes. The time complexity of generating an RSA key pair is O(n*2), where n is the key size in bits. This means that the time required to generate an RSA key pair increases quadratically with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to generate a 1024-bit RSA key pair, it will take 4 seconds to generate a 2048-bit RSA key pair, and 16 seconds to generate a 4096-bit RSA key pair.

The key size of AES encryption determines the number of bits in the symmetric key. The larger the key size, the more secure the encryption, but also the more rounds of encryption/decryption are needed. The time complexity of AES encryption is O(n), where n is the key size in bits. This means that the time required to encrypt/decrypt data increases linearly with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to encrypt/decrypt data with a 128-bit AES key, it will take 2 seconds to encrypt/decrypt data with a 256-bit AES key, and 4 seconds to encrypt/decrypt data with a 512-bit AES key.

An attacker has developed a quantum algorithm with time complexity O((log n)*2) to crack RSA encryption. This means that the time required to break RSA encryption decreases exponentially with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to break a 1024-bit RSA encryption, it will take 0.25 seconds to break a 2048-bit RSA encryption, and 0.0625 seconds to break a 4096-bit RSA encryption. This makes RSA encryption vulnerable to quantum attacks, unless the key size is very large.

Given n=4000 and variable AES key size, the scenario that is likely to provide the best balance of security and performance is C. AES key size=192 bits. This configuration is a compromise between options A and B, providing moderate security and performance. Option A, AES key size=128 bits, provides less security than option C, but RSA key generation and AES encryption will be faster. Option B, AES key size=256 bits, provides more security than option C, but RSA key generation may be slow. Option D, AES key size=512 bits, provides the highest level of security, but at a significant performance cost due to the large AES key size.

CEH v13 describes relay attacks as credential forwarding techniques where attackers trick systems into authenticating to malicious servers, capturing hashes, and relaying them to privileged services. The described scenario aligns exactly with the PetitPotam attack, a known MS-EFSRPC abuse method that forces Windows domain controllers to perform NTLM authentication to attacker-controlled hosts. CEH discusses how relay attacks combined with Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) misconfigurations can allow attackers to request privileged certificates, effectively gaining domain administrator privileges without cracking hashes or accessing LSASS. CRIME (Option B) targets TLS compression and is unrelated. Browser token theft (Option C) applies to web sessions, not domain controllers. Session donation (Option D) is not part of Windows authentication hijacking. Thus, the scenario clearly represents a PetitPotam NTLM relay attack.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, ICMP scan types are covered under host discovery techniques in Nmap/Zenmap.

The -PP option in Nmap is used to perform an ICMP timestamp request scan.

This method sends an ICMP timestamp request and listens for a timestamp reply from the target.

It helps analysts determine the system uptime and verify whether the host is alive (for stealthy discovery).

Option Clarification:

A. -PY: SCTP INIT Ping (used for SCTP-based hosts).

B. -PU: UDP Ping (sends UDP packets).

C. -PP: ICMP Timestamp Ping — correct answer.

D. -Pn: Skips host discovery (treats all hosts as alive), not a ping type.

Kernel-mode rootkits run with the best operating system privileges (Ring 0) by adding code or replacement parts of the core operating system, as well as each the kernel and associated device drivers. Most operative systems support kernel-mode device drivers, that execute with a similar privileges because the software itself. As such, several kernel-mode rootkits square measure developed as device drivers or loadable modules, like loadable kernel modules in Linux or device drivers in Microsoft Windows. This category of rootkit has unrestricted security access, however is tougher to jot down. The quality makes bugs common, and any bugs in code operative at the kernel level could seriously impact system stability, resulting in discovery of the rootkit. one amongst the primary wide familiar kernel rootkits was developed for Windows NT four.0 and discharged in Phrack magazine in 1999 by Greg Hoglund. Kernel rootkits is particularly tough to observe and take away as a result of they operate at a similar security level because the software itself, and square measure therefore able to intercept or subvert the foremost sure software operations. Any package, like antivirus package, running on the compromised system is equally vulnerable. during this scenario, no a part of the system is sure.

Side jacking, as defined in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking, is a form of session hijacking where an attacker captures valid session identifiers—usually cookies—by sniffing network traffic. This attack is particularly effective when applications fail to encrypt session cookies using HTTPS.

In CEH v13, side jacking is commonly associated with attacks performed on unsecured wireless networks, where attackers passively monitor traffic using packet sniffers such as Wireshark. If session cookies are transmitted in plaintext, the attacker can replay them to impersonate the victim without needing login credentials.

Option B precisely matches this definition: capturing unencrypted session cookies and reusing them to gain unauthorized access.

Other options describe different attack types:

A is credential harvesting via social engineering.

C is network exploitation.

D is cross-site scripting (XSS).

CEH v13 emphasizes enforcing HTTPS, Secure and HttpOnly cookie flags, and session regeneration as defenses against side jacking.

The official management decision given by a senior agency official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to agency operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), agency assets, or individuals, based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls.

formal declaration by a designated accrediting authority (DAA) or principal accrediting authority (PAA) that an information system is approved to operate at an acceptable level of risk, based on the implementation of an approved set of technical, managerial, and procedural safeguards. See authorization to operate (ATO). Rationale: The Risk Management Framework uses a new term to refer to this concept, and it is called authorization.

Identifies the information resources covered by an accreditation decision, as distinguished from separately accredited information resources that are interconnected or with which information is exchanged via messaging. Synonymous with Security Perimeter.

For the purposes of identifying the Protection Level for confidentiality of a system to be accredited, the system has a conceptual boundary that extends to all intended users of the system, both directly and indirectly connected, who receive output from the system. See authorization boundary. Rationale: The Risk Management Framework uses a new term to refer to the concept of accreditation, and it is called authorization. Extrapolating, the accreditation boundary would then be referred to as the authorization boundary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection#Blind_SQL_injection

Blind SQL injection is used when a web application is vulnerable to an SQL injection but the results of the injection are not visible to the attacker. The page with the vulnerability may not be one that displays data but will display differently depending on the results of a logical statement injected into the legitimate SQL statement called for that page. This type of attack has traditionally been considered time-intensive because a new statement needed to be crafted for each bit recovered, and depending on its structure, the attack may consist of many unsuccessful requests. Recent advancements have allowed each request to recover multiple bits, with no unsuccessful requests, allowing for more consistent and efficient extraction.

To perform a thorough password assessment, Bob can use:

Hardware Keyloggers: Installed between the keyboard and computer; captures keystrokes.

Software Keyloggers: Installed on the OS; logs keystrokes and system activity.

Network Sniffing: Captures plaintext passwords from unencrypted protocols (e.g., FTP, Telnet).

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 8: Sniffing

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A comprehensive password audit can involve passive sniffing of credentials on the wire, software keyloggers for direct input capture, and hardware keyloggers for stealthy physical surveillance.”

Incorrect Options:

B, C, D: Limiting to just one method misses out on broader techniques.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The netstat (network statistics) command is used to display:

Current TCP/UDP connections

Listening ports

Routing tables

Interface statistics

This is one of the most common tools for network troubleshooting and monitoring on Windows and Linux.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks → System and Network Utilities

“Boolean based” we mean that it is based on Boolean values, that is, true or false / true and false. AND Time-based SQL Injection is an inferential SQL Injection technique that relies on sending an SQL query to the database which forces the database to wait for a specified amount of time (in seconds) before responding. The response time will indicate to the attacker whether the result of the query is TRUE or FALSE.

Boolean-based (content-based) Blind SQLi

Boolean-based SQL Injection is an inferential SQL Injection technique that relies on sending an SQL query to the database which forces the application to return a different result depending on whether the query returns a TRUE or FALSE result.

Depending on the result, the content within the HTTP response will change, or remain the same. This allows an attacker to infer if the payload used returned true or false, even though no data from the database is returned. This attack is typically slow (especially on large databases) since an attacker would need to enumerate a database, character by character.

Time-based Blind SQLi

Time-based SQL Injection is an inferential SQL Injection technique that relies on sending an SQL query to the database which forces the database to wait for a specified amount of time (in seconds) before responding. The response time will indicate to the attacker whether the result of the query is TRUE or FALSE.

Depending on the result, an HTTP response will be returned with a delay, or returned immediately. This allows an attacker to infer if the payload used returned true or false, even though no data from the database is returned. This attack is typically slow (especially on large databases) since an attacker would need to enumerate a database character by character.

https://www.acunetix.com/websitesecurity/sql-injection2/

CEH materials describe RDDoS (Ransom DDoS) attacks as threat-driven extortion campaigns where attackers demand payment and demonstrate capability by launching a short-lived DDoS burst. The purpose is to intimidate the victim into paying before a larger, sustained attack begins. The attack described uses HTTP floods with incomplete POST requests—an application-layer DDoS technique that consumes server resources by forcing the target to hold open connections. This kind of demonstration followed by an extortion email aligns precisely with RDDoS behavior. DRDoS attacks involve reflection/amplification through third-party servers, which is not occurring here. Pulse wave attacks use timed bursts and do not involve extortion, while recursive GET floods do not match the incomplete POST behavior. Therefore, the correct classification is RDDoS.

In CEH v13 Malware Threats, BITS is highlighted as a legitimate Windows service frequently abused by attackers for stealthy command-and-control (C2) communication and data exfiltration. BITS is designed to transfer files in the background using idle bandwidth, primarily for Windows Updates and Microsoft services.

Attackers exploit BITS because its traffic closely resembles legitimate Windows update traffic, which is almost always allowed through firewalls, proxies, and endpoint security controls. This makes malicious traffic blend seamlessly into normal network activity, significantly reducing the likelihood of detection.

Option C correctly captures this behavior. BITS does not rely on IP fragmentation (Option A), DNS encryption (Option B), or exclusive HTTP tunneling (Option D). Instead, it leverages trusted system behavior and signed binaries, allowing malware to “live off the land.”

CEH v13 stresses that abuse of trusted services like BITS is a hallmark of advanced persistent threats (APTs) and fileless malware. Detecting such abuse typically requires behavioral monitoring rather than signature-based detection.

Thus, Option C is correct.

This scenario clearly describes Load Balancing as a DDoS mitigation strategy, which is covered under the CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking module. Load balancing distributes incoming network or application traffic across multiple servers or resources to prevent any single system from becoming overwhelmed.

According to CEH v13, modern DDoS mitigation architectures often combine hardware load balancers with cloud-based scrubbing centers or Content Delivery Networks (CDNs). These systems absorb high traffic volumes and ensure availability by spreading requests across multiple nodes. This approach aligns perfectly with the organization’s strategy of absorbing and distributing traffic rather than blocking it outright.

Other options are incorrect:

Black hole routing drops all traffic, including legitimate traffic.

Rate limiting restricts traffic volume rather than distributing it.

Sinkholing redirects traffic for analysis, not load distribution.

https://owasp.org/www-community/attacks/csrf

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is an attack that forces an end user to execute unwanted actions on a web application in which they’re currently authenticated. With a little help of social engineering (such as sending a link via email or chat), an attacker may trick the users of a web application into executing actions of the attacker’s choosing. If the victim is a normal user, a successful CSRF attack can force the user to perform state changing requests like transferring funds, changing their email address, and so forth. If the victim is an administrative account, CSRF can compromise the entire web application.

CSRF is an attack that tricks the victim into submitting a malicious request. It inherits the identity and privileges of the victim to perform an undesired function on the victim’s behalf. For most sites, browser requests automatically include any credentials associated with the site, such as the user’s session cookie, IP address, Windows domain credentials, and so forth. Therefore, if the user is currently authenticated to the site, the site will have no way to distinguish between the forged request sent by the victim and a legitimate request sent by the victim.

CSRF attacks target functionality that causes a state change on the server, such as changing the victim’s email address or password, or purchasing something. Forcing the victim to retrieve data doesn’t benefit an attacker because the attacker doesn’t receive the response, the victim does. As such, CSRF attacks target state-changing requests.

It’s sometimes possible to store the CSRF attack on the vulnerable site itself. Such vulnerabilities are called “stored CSRF flaws”. This can be accomplished by simply storing an IMG or IFRAME tag in a field that accepts HTML, or by a more complex cross-site scripting attack. If the attack can store a CSRF attack in the site, the severity of the attack is amplified. In particular, the likelihood is increased because the victim is more likely to view the page containing the attack than some random page on the Internet. The likelihood is also increased because the victim is sure to be authenticated to the site already.

CEH v13 identifies Slowloris as a low-bandwidth yet highly effective application-layer DoS technique that works by opening many HTTP connections and sending headers very slowly, never completing the request. Because the server must maintain these half-open HTTP sessions, its connection pool becomes saturated, preventing it from servicing legitimate users. Slowloris is particularly dangerous because it does not rely on malformed packets, high traffic volume, or protocol abuses; instead, it mimics legitimate HTTP behavior, making it difficult for firewalls or IDS systems to distinguish malicious traffic. This aligns exactly with the described scenario, where thousands of legitimate-looking HTTP connections are gradually consuming server resources. Fragmentation attacks (Option B) target packet reconstruction, UDP floods (Option C) generate high-bandwidth noise, and SYN floods (Option D) impact the TCP handshake layer, not the HTTP header behavior. Slowloris’ unique use of slow HTTP headers directly matches the symptoms described.

The VRFY commands enables SMTP clients to send an invitation to an SMTP server to verify that mail for a selected user name resides on the server. The VRFY command is defined in RFC 821.

The server sends a response indicating whether the user is local or not, whether mail are going to be forwarded, and so on. A response of 250 indicates that the user name is local; a response of 251 indicates that the user name isn’t local, but the server can forward the message. The server response includes the mailbox name.

The CEH Cloud Security module highlights identity and access management (IAM) failures as a major source of cloud breaches. Ensuring timely de-provisioning of user accounts when employees leave is a core security control.

Option C is correct.

Options A and B detect issues but don’t prevent access persistence.

Option D is unrelated to access control.

CEH stresses joiner–mover–leaver (JML) processes.

Enterprise, governments, and financial institutions have greater security with WPA3-Enterprise. WPA3-Enterprise builds upon WPA2 and ensures the consistent application of security protocol across the network.

WPA3-Enterprise also offers an optional mode using 192-bit minimum-strength security protocols and cryptographic tools to raised protect sensitive data:

• Authenticated encryption: 256-bit Galois/Counter Mode Protocol (GCMP-256)

• Key derivation and confirmation: 384-bit Hashed Message Authentication Mode (HMAC) with Secure Hash Algorithm (HMAC-SHA384)

• Key establishment and authentication: Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) exchange and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) employing a 384-bit elliptic curve

• Robust management frame protection: 256-bit Broadcast/Multicast Integrity Protocol Galois Message Authentication Code (BIP-GMAC-256)

The 192-bit security mode offered by WPA3-Enterprise ensures the proper combination of cryptographic tools are used and sets a uniform baseline of security within a WPA3 network.

It protects sensitive data using many cryptographic algorithms It provides authenticated encryption using GCMP-256 It uses HMAC-SHA-384 to generate cryptographic keys It uses ECDSA-384 for exchanging keys

CEH v13 defines passive reconnaissance as information gathering without directly interacting with the target’s systems. Activities such as reviewing archived websites, social media, forums, and public records are all passive and legal.

Running an intensive port scan, however, is an active reconnaissance technique. According to CEH v13, port scanning directly interacts with target systems and can trigger IDS/IPS alerts, logs, and even legal consequences if done without authorization.

Therefore, option B violates the principles of passive reconnaissance and is the riskiest choice.

A DHCP starvation assault is a pernicious computerized assault that objectives DHCP workers. During a DHCP assault, an unfriendly entertainer floods a DHCP worker with false DISCOVER bundles until the DHCP worker debilitates its stock of IP addresses. When that occurs, the aggressor can deny genuine organization clients administration, or even stock an other DHCP association that prompts a Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) assault.

In a DHCP Starvation assault, a threatening entertainer sends a huge load of false DISCOVER parcels until the DHCP worker thinks they’ve used their accessible pool. Customers searching for IP tends to find that there are no IP addresses for them, and they’re refused assistance. Furthermore, they may search for an alternate DHCP worker, one which the unfriendly entertainer may give. What’s more, utilizing a threatening or sham IP address, that unfriendly entertainer would now be able to peruse all the traffic that customer sends and gets.

In an unfriendly climate, where we have a malevolent machine running some sort of an instrument like Yersinia, there could be a machine that sends DHCP DISCOVER bundles. This malevolent customer doesn’t send a modest bunch – it sends a great many vindictive DISCOVER bundles utilizing sham, made-up MAC addresses as the source MAC address for each solicitation.

In the event that the DHCP worker reacts to every one of these false DHCP DISCOVER parcels, the whole IP address pool could be exhausted, and that DHCP worker could trust it has no more IP delivers to bring to the table to legitimate DHCP demands.

When a DHCP worker has no more IP delivers to bring to the table, ordinarily the following thing to happen would be for the aggressor to get their own DHCP worker. This maverick DHCP worker at that point starts giving out IP addresses.

The advantage of that to the assailant is that if a false DHCP worker is distributing IP addresses, including default DNS and door data, customers who utilize those IP delivers and begin to utilize that default passage would now be able to be directed through the aggressor’s machine. That is all that an unfriendly entertainer requires to play out a man-in-the-center (MITM) assault.

Agent Smith Attack

Agent Smith attacks are carried out by luring victims into downloading and installing malicious

apps designed and published by attackers in the form of games, photo editors, or other

attractive tools from third-party app stores such as 9Apps. Once the user has installed the app,

the core malicious code inside the application infects or replaces the legitimate apps in the

victim's mobile device C&C commands. The deceptive application replaces legitimate apps such

as WhatsApp, SHAREit, and MX Player with similar infected versions. The application sometimes

also appears to be an authentic Google product such as Google Updater or Themes. The

attacker then produces a massive volume of irrelevant and fraudulent advertisements on the

victim's device through the infected app for financial gain. Attackers exploit these apps to steal

critical information such as personal information, credentials, and bank details, from the

victim's mobile device through C&C commands.

The command in question:

wget 192.168.0.15 -q -S

wget is a command-line utility used to retrieve files via HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP.

-q (quiet mode): Suppresses output, except for errors.

-S: Displays the server response headers (even in quiet mode).

In this case, wget is being used to connect to the specified web server (192.168.0.15) and retrieve the HTTP response headers — such as the Server field (e.g., Apache, Nginx), HTTP status codes, and other metadata.