Practice Free 312-50v13 Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13) Exam Questions Answers With Explanation

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.

The TPM is a chip that's part of your computer's motherboard — if you bought an off-the-shelf PC, it's soldered onto the motherboard. If you built your own computer, you can buy one as an add-on module if your motherboard supports it. The TPM generates encryption keys, keeping part of the key to itself

PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), and IKE (Internet Key Exchange) use Public Key Cryptography for secure communication. They utilize:

Public and private key pairs

Asymmetric encryption for key exchange

Symmetric encryption for data confidentiality (after key exchange)

These protocols ensure secure data transfer over insecure networks.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography

Quote:

“Public key cryptography uses asymmetric key pairs for encryption and authentication. Protocols like PGP, SSL/TLS, and IKE rely on this to exchange keys and establish trust.”

Incorrect Options:

A & D. Digest/hash algorithms (e.g., MD5, SHA) ensure integrity, not encryption

B. Secret key refers to symmetric encryption, which is used after the public key exchange, not as the basis for these protocols

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.

This scenario clearly indicates a SYN Flood attack, a classic Denial-of-Service technique discussed in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking. In a normal TCP three-way handshake, a client sends a SYN, the server responds with SYN-ACK, and the client completes the connection with an ACK. In a SYN flood, attackers send a massive number of SYN packets but never complete the handshake.

As described in CEH v13, the server allocates memory and resources for each half-open connection, placing them in the SYN_RECEIVED state. When these connections are not finalized, the server’s connection table becomes saturated, preventing legitimate users from establishing new sessions.

Other options are incorrect:

Smurf attacks rely on ICMP amplification, not TCP handshakes.

Ping of Death uses malformed ICMP packets.

UDP Floods overwhelm ports using UDP, not TCP session states.

CEH v13 emphasizes SYN floods as one of the most common Layer 4 DoS attacks due to their simplicity and effectiveness.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

An Xmas scan is a type of stealth TCP scan that sets the FIN, PSH, and URG flags. According to RFC 793:

If the port is closed, the target responds with a TCP RST (Reset) packet.

If the port is open or filtered, there is no response.

Thus, receiving a RST response indicates a closed port.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks ? TCP Flag Scanning Techniques

ARP Spoofing Attack ARP packets can be forged to send data to the attacker’s machine.Attackers flood a target computer’s ARP cache with forged entries, which is also known as poisoning. (P.1143/1127)

This question shows a classic example of an IDOR vulnerability. Rob substitutes Ned's name in the "name" parameter and if the developer has not fixed this vulnerability, then Rob will gain access to Ned's account. Below you will find more detailed information about IDOR vulnerability.

Insecure direct object references (IDOR) are a cybersecurity issue that occurs when a web application developer uses an identifier for direct access to an internal implementation object but provides no additional access control and/or authorization checks. For example, an IDOR vulnerability would happen if the URL of a transaction could be changed through client-side user input to show unauthorized data of another transaction.

Most web applications use simple IDs to reference objects. For example, a user in a database will usually be referred to via the user ID. The same user ID is the primary key to the database column containing user information and is generated automatically. The database key generation algorithm is very simple: it usually uses the next available integer. The same database ID generation mechanisms are used for all other types of database records.

The approach described above is legitimate but not recommended because it could enable the attacker to enumerate all users. If it’s necessary to maintain this approach, the developer must at least make absolutely sure that more than just a reference is needed to access resources. For example, let’s say that the web application displays transaction details using the following URL:

https://www.example.com/transaction.php?id=74656

A malicious hacker could try to substitute the id parameter value 74656 with other similar values, for example:

https://www.example.com/transaction.php?id=74657

The 74657 transaction could be a valid transaction belonging to another user. The malicious hacker should not be authorized to see it. However, if the developer made an error, the attacker would see this transaction and hence we would have an insecure direct object reference vulnerability.

This scenario describes fileless malware using covert command-and-control (C2) channels over commonly allowed protocols such as HTTP and DNS, a technique heavily emphasized in CEH v13 Malware Threats. Such malware avoids writing files to disk and instead leverages memory, legitimate system tools, and trusted protocols to evade traditional defenses.

Signature-based antivirus updates (Option A) are ineffective against fileless malware because there are no static artifacts to match. Blocking known malware ports (Option C) is also ineffective, as the malware intentionally uses ports 80 and 53, which must remain open for normal business operations. Restricting plain HTTP (Option B) may reduce visibility but does not stop DNS tunneling or encrypted malicious traffic.

CEH v13 identifies behavioral analytics as the most effective countermeasure against advanced malware. Behavioral solutions establish a baseline of normal system and network activity, then detect anomalies such as:

Unusual outbound DNS query patterns

Abnormal HTTP beaconing intervals

Legitimate applications behaving suspiciously

PowerShell or system tools generating network traffic unexpectedly

By monitoring how systems behave rather than what files exist, behavioral analytics can identify stealthy C2 communications and disrupt them early. Therefore, Option D is the most effective and CEH-aligned response.

“Clearing tracks” is a post-exploitation phase in the ethical hacking methodology in which the attacker removes or alters system evidence to hide their activities and avoid detection. This may include:

Deleting or modifying event logs

Clearing bash history or command history

Removing malware traces

Disabling auditing

From CEH v13:

Corrupting or erasing event logs ensures that system administrators or forensic investigators cannot trace the intrusion or determine how the system was compromised.

Incorrect Options:

A. Creating a backdoor is part of the "Maintaining Access" phase, not "Clearing Tracks."

B. Injecting a rootkit is part of the "Gaining or Maintaining Access" stage.

C. Exploiting a vulnerability is part of the "Gaining Access" phase.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 05: System Hacking

Section: “Clearing Logs and Erasing Evidence”

Subsection: “Track-Clearing Techniques”

Lab: Log Manipulation and Covering Tracks

Firewalk, covered in CEH v13 Module 03, is a firewall analysis tool that uses TTL-limited probes to determine which ports are allowed through a filtering device (firewall/router).

If a Time-to-Live Exceeded message is received, it means the packet made it past the firewall and was stopped before reaching the target host.

No response typically means filtered or blocked.

Therefore:

Ports 21 and 22 are filtered by the firewall.

Port 23 triggered a TTL Exceeded, meaning it passed through the firewall, and likely hit a router or was dropped due to TTL=0 before reaching the host.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

VCloud-based (also known as Cloud-based or Cloud-assisted) antivirus leverages cloud computing to:

Offload detection and analysis to powerful remote servers

Provide real-time updates and threat intelligence

Aggregate data from multiple endpoints to improve detection

This method is efficient, especially for zero-day threats and large-scale protection.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats ? Modern Antivirus Technologies

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

As we can see, we have an IP address of 10.1.4.0 with a subnet mask of /23. According to the question, we need to determine which IP address will be included in the range of the last 100 IP addresses.

The available addresses for hosts start with 10.1.4.1 and end with 10.1.5.254. Now you can clearly see that the last 100 addresses include the address 10.1.5.200.

A Wireless Intrusion Prevention System (WIPS) is a network device that monitors the radio spectrum for the presence of unauthorized access points (intrusion detection), and can automatically take countermeasures (intrusion prevention).

CEH materials describe this attack pattern as Living-off-the-Land (LotL), where attackers abuse legitimate tools to avoid detection. Because these binaries are normally trusted, traditional antivirus solutions may not flag them.

CEH recommends file integrity monitoring (FIM), which tracks cryptographic hashes of sensitive executables and alerts administrators when unauthorized modifications occur.

Option D is correct.

Options A and B support resilience but do not detect tampering.

Option C alone is insufficient against LotL attacks.

Verbose failure messages are detailed error messages that reveal too much information about authentication failures. In the described scenario, the web application specifies whether the username or password is incorrect. This behavior enables attackers to:

Enumerate valid usernames by submitting random inputs and observing which error message is returned.

Use the valid usernames to conduct targeted attacks such as brute-force attempts or social engineering.

According to CEH v13:

Authentication mechanisms should provide generic error messages such as “Invalid username or password” to avoid exposing system behavior.

Verbose error messages violate the principle of "fail securely."

Incorrect Options:

A. Insecure transmission relates to credentials being sent over unencrypted channels (e.g., HTTP instead of HTTPS).

C. User impersonation involves taking on the identity of another user, not enumeration.

D. Password reset mechanisms are a different component of authentication, not mentioned in this context.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Authentication Bypass Techniques”

Subsection: “Enumeration via Verbose Error Messages”

=

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.

Server-side request forgery (also called SSRF) is a net security vulnerability that allows an assaulter to induce the server-side application to make http requests to associate arbitrary domain of the attacker’s choosing.

In typical SSRF examples, the attacker might cause the server to make a connection back to itself, or to other web-based services among the organization’s infrastructure, or to external third-party systems.

Another type of trust relationship that often arises with server-side request forgery is where the application server is able to interact with different back-end systems that aren’t directly reachable by users. These systems typically have non-routable private informatics addresses. Since the back-end systems normally ordinarily protected by the topology, they typically have a weaker security posture. In several cases, internal back-end systems contain sensitive functionality that may be accessed while not authentication by anyone who is able to act with the systems.

In the preceding example, suppose there’s an body interface at the back-end url https://192.168.0.68/admin. Here, an attacker will exploit the SSRF vulnerability to access the executive interface by submitting the following request:

POST /product/stock HTTP/1.0

Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

Content-Length: 118

stockApi=http://192.168.0.68/admin

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.

A Gray Hat hacker operates between ethical (White Hat) and unethical (Black Hat) behavior. They might break into systems without permission but without malicious intent, often reporting vulnerabilities afterward. They perform both offensive and defensive activities.

???? Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide, Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

“Gray Hat hackers may violate ethical standards but not necessarily for personal or financial gain. They typically operate without malicious intent.”

? Incorrect options:

A. White Hats are ethical hackers.

B. Suicide Hackers attack without regard for being caught.

D. Black Hats are malicious hackers.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/access-lists/26448-ACLsamples.html

Since the first line prohibits any TCP traffic (access-list 102 deny tcp any any), the lines below will simply be ignored by the router. Below you will find the example from CISCO documentation.

This figure shows that FTP (TCP, port 21) and FTP data (port 20) traffic sourced from NetB destined to NetA is denied, while all other IP traffic is permitted.

FTP uses port 21 and port 20. TCP traffic destined to port 21 and port 20 is denied and everything else is explicitly permitted.

access-list 102 deny tcp any any eq ftp

access-list 102 deny tcp any any eq ftp-data

access-list 102 permit ip any any

This technique is known as Boolean-Based Blind SQL Injection, as defined in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking. When applications suppress database errors and return generic responses, attackers use conditional statements to infer database behavior.

By comparing responses to true (1=1) and false (1=2) conditions, the attacker deduces whether injected SQL is being executed successfully.

CEH v13 distinguishes this from:

Error-based SQLi (visible DB errors)

UNION-based SQLi (data extraction)

Time-based SQLi (response delays)

Boolean-based blind SQL injection relies solely on content differences, making option C correct.

Gathering Wordlist from the Target Website An attacker uses the CeWL tool to gather a list of words from the target website and perform a brute-force attack on the email addresses gathered earlier. # Cewl www.certifiedhacker.com (P.200/184)

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

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.

In CEH v13 Module 16: Cloud Computing and Container Security, Cloudborne attacks are described as threats specific to bare-metal cloud infrastructure.

Characteristics of a Cloudborne Attack:

Targets firmware-level vulnerabilities in reused physical servers.

Malware or backdoors can persist even after VM or OS reinstallation.

Can lead to compromise of new tenants or clients once servers are reallocated.

First highlighted in Project X by Eclypsium.

Option Clarification:

A. MITC: Exploits synchronization in cloud storage, not firmware.

B. Cryptojacking: Mining cryptocurrency using cloud resources.

C. Cloudborne attack: Correct — targets firmware on bare-metal cloud servers.

D. Metadata spoofing: Exploits cloud instance metadata services, unrelated to firmware.

In CEH v13 DNS Enumeration, DNS cache snooping determines whether a DNS resolver has a record cached. When +norecurse is used and the response is NOERROR with no answer, it means the server is authoritative but does not have the record cached.

CEH v13 explains that this suggests no internal client has recently queried the domain, making option D correct.

According to the CEH Cryptography module, strong symmetric encryption algorithms are essential for protecting data confidentiality and obscuring traffic content.

AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) is the industry-standard symmetric encryption algorithm approved by NIST and recommended by CEH for encrypting data in transit and at rest. AES provides strong resistance against cryptanalysis and prevents attackers from deriving meaningful information from encrypted traffic.

Option D is correct because AES is efficient, secure, and widely implemented.

Option A (HMAC) provides integrity and authentication, not encryption.

Option B (RSA) is computationally expensive and not suitable for bulk traffic encryption.

Option C (DES) is deprecated due to weak key length.

CEH materials clearly recommend AES over legacy algorithms.

Triple DES is another mode of DES operation. It takes three 64-bit keys, for an overall key length of 192 bits. In Stealth, you merely type within the entire 192-bit (24 character) key instead of entering each of the three keys individually. The Triple DES DLL then breaks the user-provided key into three subkeys, padding the keys if necessary in order that they are each 64 bits long. The procedure for encryption is strictly an equivalent as regular DES, but it’s repeated 3 times , hence the name Triple DES. the info is encrypted with the primary key, decrypted with the second key, and eventually encrypted again with the third key.

Triple DES runs 3 times slower than DES, but is far safer if used properly. The procedure for decrypting something is that the same because the procedure for encryption, except it’s executed in reverse. Like DES, data is encrypted and decrypted in 64-bit chunks. Although the input key for DES is 64 bits long, the particular key employed by DES is merely 56 bits long . the smallest amount significant (right-most) bit in each byte may be a parity , and will be set in order that there are always an odd number of 1s in every byte. These parity bits are ignored, so only the seven most vital bits of every byte are used, leading to a key length of 56 bits. this suggests that the effective key strength for Triple DES is really 168 bits because each of the three keys contains 8 parity bits that aren’t used during the encryption process.

Triple DES Modes

Triple ECB (Electronic Code Book)

• This variant of Triple DES works precisely the same way because the ECB mode of DES.

• this is often the foremost commonly used mode of operation.

Triple CBC (Cipher Block Chaining)

• This method is extremely almost like the quality DES CBC mode.

• like Triple ECB, the effective key length is 168 bits and keys are utilized in an equivalent manner, as described above, but the chaining features of CBC mode also are employed.

• the primary 64-bit key acts because the Initialization Vector to DES.

• Triple ECB is then executed for one 64-bit block of plaintext.

• The resulting ciphertext is then XORed with subsequent plaintext block to be encrypted, and therefore the procedure is repeated.

• This method adds an additional layer of security to Triple DES and is therefore safer than Triple ECB, although it’s not used as widely as Triple ECB.

This scenario represents a Botnet-Based Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack, as described in CEH v13 Network Attacks. Compromised internal devices become part of a botnet and are used to launch attacks against external targets.

CEH v13 notes that botnets frequently include IoT devices and employee workstations, making insider-originated DDoS activity a serious concern.

In CEH v13 Module 07: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots, various honeypot detection techniques are discussed. One such method is time-based TCP fingerprinting, which is effective against Honeyd-based honeypots.

Honeyd Honeypots:

Lightweight, low-interaction honeypots.

Often respond with inconsistent or delayed TCP timestamps.

Can be fingerprinted by comparing round-trip time and TTL values to real systems.

Option Clarification:

A. VMware detection: Uses CPU/BIOS identifiers and MAC address patterns.

B. Honeyd detection: Correct — uses time-based TCP fingerprinting.

C. Snort_inline: A network-based IPS, not the context here.

D. Sebek: Used to monitor user-level activity, not related to TCP response timing.

A vulnerability scan identifies known vulnerabilities by comparing system configurations and software versions against a database. It is mostly passive and does not confirm if vulnerabilities are exploitable.

Penetration testing, however, involves simulating real-world attacks. It attempts to actively exploit vulnerabilities, escalate privileges, and access sensitive data, offering a more realistic view of risk.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Quote:

“A penetration test goes beyond vulnerability identification by actively exploiting weaknesses to assess the actual risk and potential impact to the organization.”

Incorrect Options:

A. Scans do more than port scanning.

C. Penetration testing is often manual and detailed.

D. The difference is methodology, not just database size.

=

When using exploits, you might gain access as only a local user. This limits what you can do on the target machine. You can use Meterpreters 'getsystem` command (https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-payloads/blob/master/c/meterpreter/source/extensions/priv/elevate.c#L70) to elevate your permissions from a local administrator to SYSTEM. This works by using three elevation techniques.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The correct nslookup syntax to perform a zone transfer is:

ls -d domain_name

So, from the nslookup prompt:

server 192.168.10.2

ls -d abccorp.local

This will attempt to list all DNS records for the abccorp.local domain from the specified server, if zone transfers are permitted.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration ? DNS Zone Transfers

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 recommended architecture for secure web application deployment is a multi-tiered setup:

Web server in the DMZ (public-facing)

Application server on the internal network

Database server on the internal network

This design limits the exposure of critical components. Only the web server is exposed to the internet, while application and database servers are shielded by firewalls and only accessible internally.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 10: Hacking Web Servers

Quote:

“Place the web server in the DMZ and keep the application and database servers within the internal network. This reduces the attack surface and provides layered security.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Internal placement makes them inaccessible externally.

C & D. Exposing the database or all servers to the internet introduces significant risk.

=

Sniffing attacks are a type of network attack that involves intercepting and analyzing data packets as they travel over a network. Sniffing attacks can be used to steal sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords, credit card numbers, etc. Sniffing attacks can also be used to perform reconnaissance, spoofing, or man-in-the-middle attacks.

The IT department of the company has implemented some security measures to prevent or mitigate sniffing attacks, such as:

Adding the MAC address of the gateway to the ARP cache: This prevents ARP spoofing, which is a technique that allows an attacker to redirect network traffic to their own device by sending fake ARP messages that associate their MAC address with the IP address of the gateway.

Switching to IPv6 instead of IPv4: This reduces the risk of IP spoofing, which is a technique that allows an attacker to send packets with a forged source IP address, pretending to be another device on the network.

Using encrypted sessions such as SSH instead of Telnet, and Secure File Transfer Protocol instead of FTP: This protects the data from being read or modified by an attacker who can capture the packets, as the data is encrypted and authenticated using cryptographic protocols.

However, these measures are not enough to completely eliminate the threat of sniffing, as an attacker can still use other techniques, such as:

Passive sniffing: This involves monitoring the network traffic without injecting any packets or altering the data. Passive sniffing can be done on a shared network, such as a hub, or on a switched network, using techniques such as MAC flooding, port mirroring, or VLAN hopping.

Active sniffing: This involves injecting packets or modifying the data to manipulate the network behavior or gain access to more traffic. Active sniffing can be done using techniques such as DHCP spoofing, DNS poisoning, ICMP redirection, or TCP session hijacking.

Therefore, the next step to enhance network security is to implement network scanning and monitoring tools, which can help detect and prevent sniffing attacks by:

Scanning the network for unauthorized devices, such as rogue access points, hubs, or sniffers, and removing them or isolating them from the network.

Monitoring the network for abnormal traffic patterns, such as excessive ARP requests, DNS queries, ICMP messages, or TCP connections, and alerting the network administrators or blocking the suspicious sources.

Analyzing the network traffic for malicious content, such as malware, phishing, or exfiltration, and filtering or quarantining the infected or compromised devices.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Wireshark on Windows requires WinPcap to operate. WinPcap is a packet capture library that allows network interfaces to operate in promiscuous mode, which is essential for sniffing traffic.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing ? Sniffing Tools ? WinPcap for Windows

Risk assessment is a key process in security management that identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes risks to organizational operations and assets. It considers various controls and safeguards to mitigate those risks.

Administrative safeguards are part of the components used in risk assessments and include:

Policies

Procedures

Training

Security awareness programs

Incident response planning

From CEH v13:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Module 20: Cryptography (as it discusses risk management and governance)

Topic: Security Controls and Risk Management Frameworks

CEH v13 Official Courseware states:

“Administrative controls, also known as administrative safeguards, form a critical component of risk assessments. These include documented security policies, user training, security audits, and incident response plans that help an organization manage and reduce risks.”

Incorrect Options:

B. Physical security is a type of safeguard but not typically referred to as a "component" of a risk assessment itself.

C. DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) is a network architecture concept, not a risk assessment component.

D. Logical interface refers to system architecture and network segmentation—not risk assessment methodology.

CEH v13 describes Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) as an attack in which an authenticated user's browser is tricked into submitting unauthorized actions to a trusted application without the user's intent. CSRF exploits the fact that browsers automatically include stored session cookies when sending requests to a domain the user is logged into. In this scenario, the attacker creates a malicious form that triggers an unwanted funds transfer. Since the application does not validate request origin, enforce CSRF tokens, or require secondary verification, it processes the attacker's forged request as if it came legitimately from the victim. CEH emphasizes that CSRF differs from XSS because no malicious script executes on the target website; instead, the attacker leverages the victim’s authenticated session. This is distinct from session fixation (Option A), replay attacks (Option B), and XSS (Option D). The described behavior aligns precisely with CSRF exploitation.

CEH cloud security modules highlight that Azure Managed Identities allow workloads such as functions, VMs, and automation tasks to authenticate to Azure resources without storing secrets. If an attacker obtains the token associated with a managed identity, they can impersonate that identity and access any Azure resources it is permitted to use. In this scenario, the captured access token is used to authenticate via Azure PowerShell and retrieve storage account keys, demonstrating unauthorized privilege usage by hijacking the managed identity. This aligns directly with managed identity abuse, where attackers leverage identity tokens instead of user credentials. NSG rule gathering and AzureGraph enumeration are reconnaissance activities, and Stormspotter is used for visualizing attack paths, not abusing identities. Therefore, this scenario clearly illustrates exploitation of managed identities.

In CEH v13 Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance, Google advanced operators are tools for passive information gathering.

related: operator is used to find websites similar to a given domain or webpage.

This helps attackers discover alternate domains, competitors, or similar content that may be vulnerable or poorly secured.

Example:

related:example.com

Will return a list of sites Google deems related to example.com.

Option Clarification:

A. inurl: – Searches for a keyword in the URL.

B. related: – Correct – Finds similar or related websites.

C. info: – Provides Google’s cached and indexed data about a URL.

D. site: – Restricts search to a specific domain or site.

<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.

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

This is a fairly simple question. You must to understand what a subnet mask is and how it works.

A subnetwork or subnet is a logical subdivision of an IP network.The practice of dividing a network into two or more networks is called subnetting.

Computers that belong to the same subnet are addressed with an identical most-significant bit-group in their IP addresses. This results in the logical division of an IP address into two fields: the network number or routing prefix and the rest field or host identifier. The rest field is an identifier for a specific host or network interface.

The routing prefix may be expressed in Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) notation written as the first address of a network, followed by a slash character (/), and ending with the bit-length of the prefix. For example, 198.51.100.0/24 is the prefix of the Internet Protocol version 4 network starting at the given address, having 24 bits allocated for the network prefix, and the remaining 8 bits reserved for host addressing. Addresses in the range 198.51.100.0 to 198.51.100.255 belong to this network. The IPv6 address specification 2001:db8::/32 is a large address block with 296 addresses, having a 32-bit routing prefix.

For IPv4, a network may also be characterized by its subnet mask or netmask, which is the bitmask that when applied by a bitwise AND operation to any IP address in the network, yields the routing prefix. Subnet masks are also expressed in dot-decimal notation like an address. For example, 255.255.255.0 is the subnet mask for the prefix 198.51.100.0/24.

The Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) is a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications for securing certain kinds of information provided by DNS for use on IP networks. DNSSEC is a set of extensions to DNS provide to DNS clients (resolvers) origin authentication of DNS data, authenticated denial of existence, and data integrity, but not availability or confidentiality. DNSSEC is necessary because the original DNS design did not include security but was designed to be a scalable distributed system. DNSSEC adds security while maintaining backward compatibility.

=

According to CEH v13, black box testing refers to a testing approach where the ethical hacker has no prior knowledge of the internal structure, source code, or configuration of the system.

The attacker simulates a real-world external attacker, relying solely on discovery and exploitation techniques.

White box testing = full knowledge

Gray box testing = partial knowledge

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."

 DHCP.MIB: Monitors network traffic between DHCP servers and remote hosts

? HOSTMIB.MIB: Monitors and manages host resources

? LNMIB2.MIB: Contains object types for workstation and server services

? MIBJI.MIB: Manages TCP/IP-based Internet using a simple architecture and system

? WINS.MIB: For the Windows Internet Name Service (WINS)

DNS tunneling may be a method wont to send data over the DNS protocol, a protocol which has never been intended for data transfer. due to that, people tend to overlook it and it’s become a well-liked but effective tool in many attacks.

Most popular use case for DNS tunneling is obtaining free internet through bypassing captive portals at airports, hotels, or if you are feeling patient the not-so-cheap on the wing Wi-Fi.

On those shared internet hotspots HTTP traffic is blocked until a username/password is provided, however DNS traffic is usually still allowed within the background: we will encode our HTTP traffic over DNS and voilà, we’ve internet access.

This sounds fun but reality is, browsing anything on DNS tunneling is slow. Like, back to 1998 slow.

Another more dangerous use of DNS tunneling would be bypassing network security devices (Firewalls, DLP appliances…) to line up an immediate and unmonitored communications channel on an organisation’s network. Possibilities here are endless: Data exfiltration, fixing another penetration testing tool… you name it.

To make it even more worrying, there’s an outsized amount of easy to use DNS tunneling tools out there.

There’s even a minimum of one VPN over DNS protocol provider (warning: the planning of the web site is hideous, making me doubt on the legitimacy of it).

As a pentester all this is often great, as a network admin not such a lot .

How does it work:

For those that ignoramus about DNS protocol but still made it here, i feel you deserve a really brief explanation on what DNS does: DNS is sort of a phonebook for the web , it translates URLs (human-friendly language, the person’s name), into an IP address (machine-friendly language, the phone number). That helps us remember many websites, same as we will remember many people’s names.

For those that know what DNS is i might suggest looking here for a fast refresh on DNS protocol, but briefly what you would like to understand is:

• A Record: Maps a website name to an IP address.

example.com ? 12.34.52.67

• NS Record (a.k.a. Nameserver record): Maps a website name to an inventory of DNS servers, just in case our website is hosted in multiple servers.

example.com ? server1.example.com, server2.example.com

Who is involved in DNS tunneling?

• Client. Will launch DNS requests with data in them to a website .

• One Domain that we will configure. So DNS servers will redirect its requests to an outlined server of our own.

• Server. this is often the defined nameserver which can ultimately receive the DNS requests.

The 6 Steps in DNS tunneling (simplified):

1. The client encodes data during a DNS request. The way it does this is often by prepending a bit of knowledge within the domain of the request. for instance : mypieceofdata.server1.example.com

2. The DNS request goes bent a DNS server.

3. The DNS server finds out the A register of your domain with the IP address of your server.

4. The request for mypieceofdata.server1.example.com is forwarded to the server.

5. The server processes regardless of the mypieceofdata was alleged to do. Let’s assume it had been an HTTP request.

6. The server replies back over DNS and woop woop, we’ve got signal.

Bypassing Firewalls through the DNS Tunneling Method DNS operates using UDP, and it has a 255-byte limit on outbound queries. Moreover, it allows only alphanumeric characters and hyphens. Such small size constraints on external queries allow DNS to be used as an ideal choice to perform data exfiltration by various malicious entities. Since corrupt or malicious data can be secretly embedded into the DNS protocol packets, even DNSSEC cannot detect the abnormality in DNS tunneling. It is effectively used by malware to bypass the firewall to maintain communication between the victim machine and the C&C server. Tools such as NSTX (https://sourceforge.net), Heyoka (http://heyoka.sourceforge.netuse), and Iodine (https://code.kryo.se) use this technique of tunneling traffic across DNS port 53. CEH v11 Module 12 Page 994

According to the CEH Network Scanning module, Idle Scanning (Zombie Scanning) is one of the most stealthy reconnaissance techniques. In this method, the attacker uses an idle third-party host (zombie) to probe the target indirectly.

Because all scan packets appear to originate from the zombie system, the true attacker remains hidden. CEH highlights that idle scans:

Are extremely stealthy

Generate minimal traffic from the attacker

Make attribution very difficult

Option B is correct.

Option A (FIN scan) is stealthy but still traceable.

Option C is noisy and easily detected.

Option D describes a Xmas scan, which is detectable.

CEH classifies idle scanning as one of the hardest scanning techniques to trace.

DNS hijacking occurs when attackers manipulate DNS responses to redirect traffic to malicious servers. CEH v13 clearly identifies DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) as the primary defense against such attacks.

DNSSEC adds cryptographic signatures to DNS records, enabling clients to verify authenticity and integrity of DNS responses. Without DNSSEC, attackers can spoof DNS responses even if servers are fully patched.

Changing IP addresses and using LAMP do not address DNS trust. Patching is essential but does not prevent DNS spoofing.

CEH v13 explicitly recommends DNSSEC for preventing cache poisoning and DNS hijacking attacks, making Option C the correct answer.

CHNTPW (Change NT Password) is a Linux-based utility that allows attackers or administrators to:

Reset Windows user account passwords

Unlock disabled or locked user accounts

Remove password protection without knowing the original password

It works by editing the Windows SAM (Security Account Manager) file located in the Windows system directory.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 5: System Hacking

Quote:

“CHNTPW is a tool that can reset or change passwords on Windows systems by directly editing the SAM database. It is commonly run from a Linux LiveCD.”

Incorrect Options:

A. John the Ripper is for cracking passwords, not resetting them directly.

B. SET (Social Engineering Toolkit) is for phishing and payloads, not password resets.

D. Cain & Abel is a password recovery tool for Windows but runs on Windows, not Linux.

=

If a system stores passwords in weak or reversible formats, attackers can perform offline cracking. CEH emphasizes dictionary attacks as the fastest and most efficient method to exploit weak hashing practices. This avoids detection and leverages known password patterns to recover plaintext credentials.

CEH v13 emphasizes that insecure deserialization is one of the most dangerous application vulnerabilities because it can lead to arbitrary code execution, bypassing authentication, authorization, and session protections entirely.

Even with MFA, encrypted cookies, and WAFs, deserialization flaws allow attackers to manipulate serialized objects used in session handling. When deserialized without validation, these objects may execute attacker-controlled code.

CSRF relies on authenticated users. Side jacking is mitigated by encryption. Session fixation is ineffective if session regeneration and MFA are implemented. Insecure deserialization, however, attacks the application logic itself, making it the most effective option.

Thus, Option D is correct.

The CEH SQL Injection module defines stacked (piggybacked) queries as attacks where an attacker appends an additional SQL statement using a statement delimiter such as a semicolon.

In this scenario, the attacker executed a second query (DROP TABLE users) after the original query, resulting in destructive behavior.

Option B is correct.

Option A retrieves data, not execute destructive commands.

Option C infers logic outcomes.

Option D relies on error messages for data extraction.

CEH classifies stacked queries as high-impact SQL injection attacks.

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

CEH v13 explains that steganography-based exfiltration hides data within benign-looking files, making it extremely difficult to detect via firewalls or IPS alone. Blocking all outbound traffic is impractical, and IPS systems are not designed to analyze file content deeply for hidden data.

The most effective countermeasure is steganalysis, which involves inspecting files for statistical anomalies, altered pixel distributions, or hidden payload patterns. CEH v13 identifies steganalysis tools as the only reliable method to detect and decode hidden data.

Traffic monitoring (Option C) helps identify suspicious transfers but cannot confirm steganography. Therefore, Option D is correct.

In the context of security testing, test automation plays a critical role in improving the speed and consistency of testing activities. However, it cannot entirely replace manual testing because certain security vulnerabilities—especially logic flaws or issues with session management—often require human intuition and contextual understanding.

According to CEH v13 Official Courseware – Module 05 (Vulnerability Analysis), and confirmed in the CEH v13 Study Guide, automated testing is best suited for:

Repetitive benchmark tests

Regression testing

Scanning for known vulnerabilities

Ensuring consistency across environments

However, manual testing is still essential for:

Business logic testing

Security misconfiguration identification

Discovering zero-day flaws

CEH v13 defines a white hat hacker as a security professional with explicit authorization to perform penetration testing, vulnerability assessments, and exploitation attempts within legal and contractual boundaries. Their objective is to strengthen security, not compromise it. White hats follow structured methodologies, document findings, and provide remediation recommendations. A black hat (Option A) acts maliciously and without permission. A grey hat (Option B) operates without authorization but without harmful intent, which is not compliant with corporate penetration testing procedures. Script kiddies (Option C) rely on pre-built tools without deep knowledge and are not employed for legitimate engagements. Therefore, the individual described is a white hat, operating under legal and ethical guidelines with organizational consent.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack aims to overwhelm a system or service with excessive requests, rendering it unavailable to legitimate users. It targets:

Bandwidth (e.g., flooding with traffic)

Resources (CPU, memory, or disk usage)

Applications (exploiting bugs that crash services)

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 9: Denial-of-Service Attacks

Incorrect Options:

B refers to brute-force attacks.

C mischaracterizes password cracking.

D describes impersonation or spoofing, not DoS.

CEH v13 classifies application-layer DoS attacks as the most difficult to detect and mitigate. A distributed SQL injection-based DoS exploits database query processing by overwhelming backend systems with malicious but syntactically valid requests.

Unlike volumetric attacks, this method generates low-bandwidth, high-impact traffic that appears legitimate. Traditional DDoS protections often fail to identify such traffic, especially when it targets authenticated services like online banking.

UDP floods, Smurf attacks, and ICMP-based attacks are well-known and more easily mitigated with rate limiting and filtering. Zero-day exploits cause service disruption but are not primarily DoS techniques.

CEH v13 highlights that application-layer DoS attacks blend seamlessly with normal traffic patterns, making them exceptionally challenging. Thus, option A is correct.

Objectives of Footprinting Draw Network Map - Combining footprinting techniques with tools such as Tracert allows the attacker to create diagrammatic representations of the target organization’s network presence. Specficially, it allows attackers to draw a map or outline of the target organization’s network infrastructure to know about the actual environment that they are going to break into. These network diagrams can guide the attacker in performing an attack. (P.114/98)

Josh is preparing to send the payload (malicious file) to the target, which clearly maps to the Delivery phase of the Cyber Kill Chain.

According to CEH v13 and the Cyber Kill Chain model (developed by Lockheed Martin and used in ethical hacking methodology):

Delivery is the third phase of the kill chain.

It involves transmitting the weaponized payload to the target via phishing emails, USB drops, or malicious links.

In this case, Josh is preparing the email with a spoofed identity and malicious attachment — representing an act of delivery.

Incorrect options:

A. Exploitation occurs after delivery, when the payload is executed.

B. Weaponization is the phase where the malicious file is created (combining exploit with a backdoor or trojan).

D. Reconnaissance involves information gathering, completed earlier in the scenario.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Section: “Cyber Kill Chain Model”

Table Reference: “Stages of a Cyber Attack”

CEH Engage Lab: “Kill Chain Simulation in Phishing Campaigns”

In CEH v13 Mobile, IoT, and OT Hacking, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) attacks often involve capturing pairing exchanges. If the Long-Term Key (LTK) is not captured, decryption is not immediately possible.

CEH v13 explains that in such cases, attackers may attempt Btlejacking, which hijacks an existing BLE connection rather than decrypting it. This allows command injection and data manipulation without needing the LTK.

Options A and B are incorrect because decryption is not the only attack path. hcitool is for discovery, not exploitation. Therefore, Option D is correct.

Session Replay Attacks are highlighted in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking as one of the most sophisticated and difficult-to-detect session hijacking techniques. In this attack, adversaries capture valid session tokens or encrypted session identifiers and replay them to impersonate legitimate users.

Unlike credential stuffing, which relies on login attempts and can be detected through authentication anomalies, session replay occurs after authentication, using legitimate session artifacts. Clickjacking and CSRF manipulate user interactions but do not directly hijack session tokens.

CEH v13 explains that session replay attacks are especially dangerous in environments where session tokens are predictable, long-lived, or improperly bound to client attributes such as IP address or device fingerprint. Because the attacker reuses valid session data, traditional detection mechanisms often fail.

The replayed session appears legitimate to the server, making fraud detection extremely difficult without advanced behavioral analytics. This makes session replay attacks particularly effective in online retail environments where transactions are frequent and time-sensitive.

Thus, Option D correctly identifies the most challenging attack.

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.

The nbtstat command is a Windows utility that displays NetBIOS over TCP/IP (NetBT) protocol statistics, NetBIOS name tables, and the NetBIOS name cache. However, the nbtstat command does not support IPv6 addresses, which are the standard format for the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). Therefore, using the nbtstat command with IPv6 addresses will result in an error message or no output. To enumerate NetBIOS names on a network that uses IPv6, you should switch to an enumeration tool that supports IPv6, such as Nmap, which is a network scanning and security auditing tool. Nmap has a scripting engine (NSE) that allows users to write and execute scripts for various network tasks, including NetBIOS enumeration. Nmap can also detect the operating system, services, and vulnerabilities of the target machines, regardless of the IP version they use. References:

Nbtstat Command - Computer Hope

Nbtstat CMD: Windows Network Command Line Prompt

[Nmap Scripting Engine (NSE) Documentation]

The virus described changes its own code with each execution but still performs the same actions. This is the hallmark of a Metamorphic Virus. Unlike polymorphic viruses (which use encrypted code with a changing decryptor), metamorphic viruses rewrite their own code entirely — including their decryption and execution routines — to avoid pattern detection by antivirus software.

Key characteristics of metamorphic viruses seen in the scenario:

Mutates completely on every execution.

Keeps overall functionality identical (semantics intact).

Alters its appearance and logic flow.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats ? Types of Viruses and Obfuscation Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Metamorphic viruses modify their own code structure and appearance with each iteration, without altering their underlying behavior. This makes them more difficult to detect through signature-based mechanisms.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Polymorphic viruses encrypt themselves with a changing decryptor stub but do not change their core logic.

C: “Dravidic Virus” is not a recognized term in cybersecurity.

D: Stealth viruses hide their presence (e.g., by intercepting system calls), but do not change their code structure.

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.

SYN/FIN scanning using IP fragments is a process of scanning that was developed to avoid false positives generated by other scans because of a packet filtering device on the target system. The TCP header splits into several packets to evade the packet filter. For any transmission, every TCP header must have the source and destination port for the initial packet (8-octet, 64-bit). The initialized flags in the next packet allow the remote host to reassemble the packets upon receipt via an Internet protocol module that detects the fragmented data packets using field-equivalent values of the source, destination, protocol, and identification.

Comprehensive Explanation from CEH v13 Courseware:

CEH v13 underscores that modern multi-vector DDoS attacks—particularly SYN floods combined with Layer 7 HTTP floods—cannot be effectively mitigated by traditional firewalls, IPS devices, or local traffic filters. These systems become overwhelmed or risk blocking legitimate clients. CEH emphasizes the use of cloud-based DDoS mitigation platforms that provide traffic scrubbing, distributed filtering, rate shaping, and automatic scaling to absorb massive volumes of malicious traffic. Such services differentiate legitimate versus malicious traffic using global intelligence, behavioral analysis, and multi-layer protection strategies. Increasing bandwidth or blocking broad traffic categories is ineffective and harmful to users. An IPS cannot scale to handle volumetric attacks. Only cloud scrubbing solutions (e.g., Cloudflare, Akamai, AWS Shield Advanced) meet CEH’s recommended defenses for high-volume distributed attacks. These services ensure continuous availability and minimize collateral damage by filtering traffic upstream before it reaches the organization's infrastructure.

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

According to the CEH IDS/IPS module, false positives occur when legitimate activity is incorrectly flagged as malicious. The most common cause is overly sensitive IDS rules or thresholds.

Option D correctly identifies this issue.

Option A describes the symptom, not the root cause.

Option B is unrelated to IDS alert behavior.

Option C can cause missed detections, not excessive alerts.

CEH recommends proper tuning and baseline profiling.

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.

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.

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

According to CEH v13 Security Operations and Incident Response, the first step in incident handling is identification and analysis, not immediate containment or remediation. The observed sequence—failed logins followed by abnormal outbound traffic—suggests a potential compromise, but the exact nature, scope, and impact are still unknown.

Option C aligns precisely with CEH v13’s incident response lifecycle. Real-time monitoring and detailed log analysis allow the analyst to determine whether the activity represents credential stuffing, brute-force compromise, malware-based exfiltration, or a false positive. This step preserves evidence, establishes timelines, and helps identify indicators of compromise (IOCs).

Immediately disconnecting the server (Option B) may be necessary later, but doing so prematurely can destroy volatile forensic evidence, disrupt business operations, and alert the attacker. Auditing outbound traffic alone (Option A) is too narrow and skips proper correlation of authentication logs, system logs, and process activity. Forcing credential changes (Option D) without understanding the attack vector may fail to stop malware-based persistence.

CEH v13 emphasizes that containment actions must be informed by analysis, otherwise organizations risk responding to symptoms rather than root causes. Therefore, the correct initial action is to observe, analyze, and identify, making Option C the correct answer.

Mar 1, 2016, 7:33:28 AM 10.240.250.23 - 54373 10.249.253.15 - 22 tcp_ip

Let's just disassemble this entry.

Mar 1, 2016, 7:33:28 AM - time of the request

10.240.250.23 - 54373 - client's IP and port

10.249.253.15 - server IP

- 22 - SSH port

CEH v13 identifies Man-in-the-Browser (MitB) attacks as one of the most dangerous and difficult-to-detect session hijacking techniques, especially in online banking environments. In MitB attacks, malware operates inside the user’s browser, intercepting and manipulating transactions in real time.

Unlike XSS or session fixation attacks, MitB bypasses server-side security controls entirely. Even strong encryption, multi-factor authentication, and secure cookies are ineffective because the attack occurs after authentication, within a trusted session.

Passive sniffing is limited by encryption, and session fixation relies on poor session management. Covert XSS requires injection points and is more easily mitigated.

CEH v13 emphasizes that MitB attacks can modify transaction details without user awareness, making detection extremely difficult. Therefore, Option B is correct.

CEH notes that cloud IAM misconfigurations can unintentionally grant broad access. If any authenticated cloud account is permitted read/write access, attackers can simply authenticate with their own cloud identity and directly interact with the misconfigured storage buckets, enabling data exfiltration or manipulation.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, Nmap includes timing templates for controlling the speed and stealthiness of scans.

-T5: Insane mode – very fast, highly aggressive, easily detectable.

-T0: Paranoid mode – very slow and stealthy.

-O: Enables OS detection (not related to scan speed).

-A: Enables OS detection, version detection, script scanning, and traceroute (comprehensive but not specifically about speed).

Therefore:

If speed is your goal and you are not concerned about detection, then:

-T5 is the correct answer.

IoT devices often suffer from weak or missing encryption protocols, creating opportunities for attackers to intercept sensitive information. CEH courseware highlights that when device-to-app communication occurs in plaintext, a man-in-the-middle attack becomes one of the most effective exploitation methods. By positioning themselves between the device and the mobile application, the attacker can observe all transmitted data, including configuration updates, authentication tokens, and personal information. Tools such as Wireshark, mitmproxy, and specialized IoT interception frameworks allow testers to capture packets, decode protocols, and reconstruct application logic. The CEH curriculum stresses the importance of evaluating IoT device communication channels, because many rely on unsecured HTTP or proprietary plaintext protocols. Brute-force attempts, SQL injection, or dictionary attacks do not directly target the device–app communication pathway and would not exploit the fundamental weakness present here: lack of encryption. A MitM attack directly takes advantage of this flaw and provides comprehensive visibility into all transmitted data, making it the most effective and CEH-aligned method of exploitation.

SHA-256 is a cryptographic hash function, and CEH v13 clearly states that hash functions alone provide data integrity, but not authenticity or non-repudiation. If attackers can modify data and recompute the hash, integrity checks will still pass.

The issue arises because SHA-256 does not prove who created or modified the data. To address this weakness, CEH v13 recommends using digital signatures, which combine hashing with asymmetric cryptography. A digital signature ensures:

Integrity (data has not changed)

Authentication (data was signed by a known entity)

Non-repudiation (the signer cannot deny the action)

Digital signatures work by hashing the data and encrypting the hash with the sender’s private key. Any modification to the data invalidates the signature.

Encryption alone (Options A and C) protects confidentiality, not integrity or authenticity. SSL/TLS (Option B) secures data in transit but does not protect stored data from tampering.

CEH v13 explicitly identifies digital signatures as the correct cryptographic control when integrity mechanisms alone are insufficient. Therefore, Option D is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From CEH v13 Guide:

Grey-box testing is a hybrid method where the tester has partial knowledge of the internal workings of the system, allowing for a more focused and efficient assessment of security vulnerabilities compared to black-box (no knowledge) and white-box (full knowledge). This approach simulates an insider threat or a user with limited access rights.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 15: Hacking Web Applications – Types of Penetration Testing

“Gray-box testing assumes partial knowledge of internal structures, combining elements of both black-box and white-box testing.”

=

CEH v13 defines a penetration tester as an authorized security professional whose responsibility is to identify, exploit, and report vulnerabilities within an organization’s systems, networks, applications, and processes. Unlike malicious hackers, penetration testers operate strictly within legal boundaries, under documented Rules of Engagement (RoE), and with explicit written permission from the organization. Their goal is not to harm systems but to simulate real-world cyberattacks to help organizations strengthen their defenses. CEH emphasizes the ethical responsibilities of penetration testers, including maintaining confidentiality, avoiding unauthorized data exposure, ensuring minimal operational impact, and providing actionable recommendations. Options B, C, and D describe malicious actors, malware authors, or unauthorized attackers—roles opposite to that of an ethical penetration tester. CEH makes a strong distinction between white-hat ethical hackers and black-hat attackers, with penetration testers firmly falling under the ethical, lawful category. Therefore, Option A accurately reflects CEH’s definition of a penetration tester.

CEH defines ethical hacking as the authorized, structured, and permission-based process of identifying vulnerabilities to strengthen an organization’s security posture. Ethical hackers operate under a signed scope-of-work and follow legal boundaries. Malicious hackers, by contrast, exploit systems without permission, often with harmful or criminal intent. CEH emphasizes that both ethical and malicious hackers may use similar tools, techniques, and methodologies; the distinction lies entirely in authorization, intent, and legality. Ethical hacking is conducted to improve defenses, while malicious hacking targets exploitation, theft, or disruption. Nothing in CEH materials suggests that toolsets or work styles distinguish the two groups; permission and lawful operation remain the central differentiators.

Vulnerability scanning software is a tool that can help security analysts identify and prioritize known vulnerabilities in their systems and applications. However, it is not a perfect solution and has some limitations that need to be considered. One of the most critical limitations is that vulnerability scanning software is not immune to software engineering flaws that might lead to serious vulnerabilities being missed. This means that the software itself might have bugs, errors, or oversights that could affect its accuracy, reliability, or performance. For example, the software might:

Fail to detect some vulnerabilities due to incomplete or outdated databases, incorrect signatures, or insufficient coverage of the target system or application.

Produce false positives or false negatives due to misinterpretation of the scan results, incorrect configuration, or lack of context or validation.

Cause unintended consequences or damage to the target system or application due to intrusive or aggressive scanning techniques, such as exploiting vulnerabilities, modifying data, or crashing services.

Be vulnerable to attacks or compromise by malicious actors who could exploit its weaknesses, tamper with its functionality, or steal its data.

Therefore, the security analyst should be most cautious about this limitation of vulnerability scanning software, as it could lead to a false sense of security, missed opportunities for remediation, or increased exposure to threats. The security analyst should always verify the scan results, use multiple tools and methods, and update and patch the software regularly to mitigate this risk.

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.

CEH v13 highlights that multi-vector DDoS attacks require multi-layer DDoS mitigation services, often cloud-based, capable of analyzing, filtering, and scrubbing traffic across network, transport, and application layers. These providers maintain massive bandwidth capacity, global scrubbing centers, and behavioral analysis engines that distinguish legitimate sessions from malicious floods. SYN floods and HTTP GET floods require different mitigation techniques simultaneously, which typical firewalls or WAFs cannot handle without dropping legitimate traffic. Blocking SYN packets (Option A) would disrupt normal users. A WAF (Option C) handles only Layer 7 traffic and does not mitigate network-layer volumetric attacks. Increasing bandwidth (Option D) is ineffective against large botnet attacks. Therefore, deploying a multi-layer cloud DDoS protection service is the most effective solution for resilient, real-time mitigation.

Patch management is that the method that helps acquire, test and install multiple patches (code changes) on existing applications and software tools on a pc, enabling systems to remain updated on existing patches and determining that patches are the suitable ones. Managing patches so becomes simple and simple.

Patch Management is usually done by software system firms as a part of their internal efforts to mend problems with the various versions of software system programs and also to assist analyze existing software system programs and discover any potential lack of security features or different upgrades.

Software patches help fix those problems that exist and are detected solely once the software’s initial unharness. Patches mostly concern security while there are some patches that concern the particular practicality of programs as well.

A hybrid attack combines a dictionary and brute-force approach. Given that:

Passwords are required to be complex

Users still often choose predictable variations (e.g., Password123!, Welcome@2024)

A hybrid attack is best suited because it applies common mutations to known words—much faster than full brute force and more effective than a plain dictionary attack.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Password Cracking ? Attack Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Hybrid attacks combine the speed of dictionary attacks with some of the thoroughness of brute-force. It’s ideal when users use complex but predictable passwords.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Online attacks are slow and may trigger account lockouts.

B: Plain dictionary attacks won’t cover variations like “P@ssw0rd!”

C: Brute-force would be too slow for complex passwords.

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

CEH training outlines the standard methodology for attacking WPA2-PSK networks: capture the 4-way handshake and then attempt offline cracking of the pre-shared key. The most reliable way to force handshake generation is to perform a de-authentication attack using tools like Aireplay-ng. This attack momentarily disconnects a wireless client, forcing it to reauthenticate with the access point. During this reauthentication, the AP and client exchange the 4-way handshake packets necessary for offline cracking. CEH emphasizes that WPA2 encryption itself cannot be brute-forced directly; attackers must obtain the handshake and then apply dictionary or brute-force attacks offline. Attempting XSS or router spoofing does not capture the handshake and is unrelated to WPA2 key extraction. The deauth attack is also a classic wireless attack vector described extensively in CEH because it is effective, does not require interaction with the encryption algorithm, and works regardless of the strength of the AP’s passphrase. Once the handshake is captured, tools such as Hashcat are used to attempt key recovery.

The CEH Enumeration module explains that SMTP supports commands such as VRFY, EXPN, and RCPT TO, which can be abused to enumerate valid email users if not properly restricted.

In this scenario, the smtp-enum-users Nmap script successfully uses EXPN and RCPT, indicating that the server responds differently to valid and invalid usernames.

Option C is correct because unrestricted SMTP user verification allows attackers to harvest usernames for further attacks such as phishing or brute force.

Option A involves authentication, not enumeration.

Option B affects confidentiality, not user discovery.

Option D is unrelated to SMTP enumeration.

CEH strongly recommends disabling or restricting these SMTP commands.

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.

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.

Whois footprinting is a reconnaissance technique used by attackers and penetration testers to gather publicly available information about domain names. By performing a Whois lookup, one can retrieve:

Domain registrant details (name, email, phone, and address)

Domain registration and expiry dates

Name servers and registrar information

Administrative and technical contact data

According to CEH v13:

Whois databases are maintained by Internet registrars and can be queried through tools like whois lookup or websites such as https://whois.domaintools.com.

This information helps attackers build a profile of the organization, identify potential social engineering targets, and even understand domain structure for further attacks.

Incorrect Options:

A. VPN footprinting refers to identifying VPN gateways or configurations — not related to domain data.

B. Email footprinting involves gathering information from or about email systems.

C. VoIP footprinting targets IP-based telephony systems, such as SIP endpoints.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance

Section: “WHOIS Footprinting”

Tools: Whois lookup tools, ICANN WHOIS, DomainTools

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.

DNS uses Ports 53 which is almost always open on systems, firewalls, and clients to transmit DNS queries. instead of the more familiar Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) these queries use User Datagram Protocol (UDP) due to its low-latency, bandwidth and resource usage compared TCP-equivalent queries. UDP has no error or flow-control capabilities, nor does it have any integrity checking to make sure the info arrived intact.

How is internet use (browsing, apps, chat etc) so reliable then? If the UDP DNS query fails (it’s a best-effort protocol after all) within the first instance, most systems will retry variety of times and only after multiple failures, potentially switch to TCP before trying again; TCP is additionally used if the DNS query exceeds the restrictions of the UDP datagram size – typically 512 bytes for DNS but can depend upon system settings.

Figure 1 below illustrates the essential process of how DNS operates: the client sends a question string (for example, mail.google[.]com during this case) with a particular type – typically A for a number address. I’ve skipped the part whereby intermediate DNS systems may need to establish where ‘.com’ exists, before checking out where ‘google[.]com’ are often found, and so on.

Many worms and scanners are created to seek out and exploit systems running telnet. Given these facts, it’s really no surprise that telnet is usually seen on the highest Ten Target Ports list. Several of the vulnerabilities of telnet are fixed. They require only an upgrade to the foremost current version of the telnet Daemon or OS upgrade. As is usually the case, this upgrade has not been performed on variety of devices. this might flow from to the very fact that a lot of systems administrators and users don’t fully understand the risks involved using telnet. Unfortunately, the sole solution for a few of telnets vulnerabilities is to completely discontinue its use. the well-liked method of mitigating all of telnets vulnerabilities is replacing it with alternate protocols like ssh. Ssh is capable of providing many of an equivalent functions as telnet and a number of other additional services typical handled by other protocols like FTP and Xwindows. Ssh does still have several drawbacks to beat before it can completely replace telnet. it’s typically only supported on newer equipment. It requires processor and memory resources to perform the info encryption and decryption. It also requires greater bandwidth than telnet thanks to the encryption of the info . This paper was written to assist clarify how dangerous the utilization of telnet are often and to supply solutions to alleviate the main known threats so as to enhance the general security of the web

Once a reputation is resolved to an IP caching also helps: the resolved name-to-IP is usually cached on the local system (and possibly on intermediate DNS servers) for a period of your time . Subsequent queries for an equivalent name from an equivalent client then don’t leave the local system until said cache expires. Of course, once the IP address of the remote service is understood , applications can use that information to enable other TCP-based protocols, like HTTP, to try to to their actual work, for instance ensuring internet cat GIFs are often reliably shared together with your colleagues.

So, beat all, a couple of dozen extra UDP DNS queries from an organization’s network would be fairly inconspicuous and will leave a malicious payload to beacon bent an adversary; commands could even be received to the requesting application for processing with little difficulty.

According to CEH v13, one of the most effective defenses against rogue DHCP servers is DHCP snooping, a Layer 2 security feature that classifies switch ports as either trusted or untrusted. DHCP responses are permitted only on trusted ports, typically those connected to legitimate DHCP servers. Any DHCP OFFER or ACK originating from an untrusted port is dropped automatically. In the scenario, the rogue DHCP server is sending unauthorized configuration settings because the switch is forwarding DHCP messages from all ports without restriction. CEH specifically warns that unmanaged or misconfigured switches allow rogue DHCP servers to assign malicious DNS, gateway, or IP configurations, enabling traffic redirection, interception, or man-in-the-middle attacks. ARP inspection (Option B) protects against ARP spoofing but not DHCP abuses. Port security (Option C) prevents MAC flooding, not DHCP impersonation. Static reservations (Option D) do not scale and do not stop rogue DHCP servers. DHCP snooping directly mitigates this threat.

Nmap provides a scripting engine (NSE) that includes a script named http-methods. This script sends OPTIONS requests to the web server to determine which HTTP methods are supported. Identifying risky methods like PUT and DELETE helps detect misconfigured or vulnerable web servers.

Example command:

nmap --script http-methods -p 80

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 11: Hacking Web Applications

Quote:

“The Nmap script http-methods helps identify enabled HTTP methods including potentially dangerous ones like PUT and DELETE.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

B. http-enum is used to enumerate directories and applications, not methods.

C. http-headers retrieves HTTP headers.

D. http-git checks for Git repositories on web servers.

=

According to CEH v13 Module 09: Social Engineering, Whaling is a specific type of phishing attack that targets senior executives and high-value individuals.

It’s called “whaling” because these individuals are the “big fish.”

Attacks are highly targeted and customized, often using knowledge of the executive’s company, responsibilities, or communication style.

The goal is to gain access to sensitive systems, financial assets, or confidential data.

Option Breakdown:

A. Spear phishing: Targeted phishing but not necessarily aimed at high-profile executives.

B. Whaling: Correct – phishing directed at C-level or VIP targets.

C. Vishing: Voice phishing – conducted over telephone/VoIP.

D. Phishing: General term – broader category.

Guardster is an anonymizing proxy service that allows users to:

Mask their real IP address

Bypass content filters and access restricted websites

Maintain anonymity while browsing or engaging in online activities

It functions as a middleman between the user and target sites, hiding user identities.

Incorrect Options:

A. Baidu is a Chinese search engine.

C. WolframAlpha is a computational search engine.

D. Karma Decay is a reverse image search engine for Reddit.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance

Section: “Anonymous Browsing Tools and Techniques”

Subsection: “Proxy and Anonymizing Services”

A sniffer tool is a software or hardware device that can capture and analyze network traffic. In a switched Ethernet environment, where each port on a switch is connected to a single device, a sniffer tool can only see the traffic that is destined for or originated from the device it is attached to. However, an attacker can use various techniques to overcome this limitation and sniff the traffic of other devices on the same network. One of these techniques is MAC flooding, which exploits the finite memory of the switch’s MAC address table. The attacker sends a large number of frames with different source MAC addresses to the switch, which fills up the MAC address table and causes the switch to enter a fail-open mode, where it broadcasts all incoming frames to all ports, regardless of the destination MAC address. This way, the attacker can see all the traffic on the network and capture it with a sniffer tool.

The other options are less likely or less effective techniques for sniffing a switched Ethernet network. Compromising physical security to plug into the network directly may allow the attacker to sniff the traffic of the device they are connected to, but not the traffic of other devices on the network. Using a Trojan horse with in-built sniffing capability may allow the attacker to sniff the traffic of the infected device, but not the traffic of other devices on the network, unless the Trojan horse also performs MAC flooding or other techniques to bypass the switch. Using passive sniffing, which involves listening to the network traffic without sending any packets, may provide significant stealth advantages, but it does not help the attacker to see the traffic of other devices on the network, unless the switch is already in fail-open mode or the attacker uses other techniques to induce it. 

In CEH v13 Cloud Computing, serverless architectures introduce unique security challenges, particularly around Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) permissions. When a serverless function is compromised through an insecure third-party API, the damage depends largely on what the function is allowed to do.

Implementing function-level permission models and enforcing the principle of least privilege ensures that even if a function is exploited, its ability to execute malicious actions is strictly limited. CEH v13 strongly emphasizes granular IAM controls in serverless environments.

While cloud-native security platforms (Option A) and CASBs (Option C) provide visibility and governance, they do not directly prevent excessive permissions. Regular patching (Option D) is important but does not mitigate permission abuse.

CEH v13 identifies least privilege as the single most critical control in preventing serverless abuse and privilege escalation. Therefore, Option B is the correct answer.

According to the CEH attack methodology, once an attacker obtains initial access—whether through exploitation, misconfiguration, or credential compromise—the next critical phase is privilege escalation. Gaining system-level or administrative control is essential for maintaining persistence, accessing protected data, modifying system configurations, and pivoting further into the network. Privilege escalation exploits target kernel flaws, misconfigured services, improper permission settings, or vulnerable drivers. CEH emphasizes that performing a DoS attack disrupts the engagement and provides no strategic advantage. Similarly, CSRF targets web applications rather than operating systems, and brute-force password attempts are inefficient, noisy, and often ineffective once local access has already been established. By leveraging privilege escalation techniques, the tester converts limited user access into full system control, enabling comprehensive post-exploitation activities aligned with CEH system hacking procedures.

In CEH v13 Module 06: Malware Threats, a worm is described as a self-replicating piece of malware that spreads independently from one system to another without needing to attach itself to any file or program (unlike viruses).

Key Characteristics of Worms:

Capable of network propagation without human interaction.

Often used in mass attacks (e.g., WannaCry, Conficker).

Can cause significant damage by:

Consuming bandwidth.

Spreading payloads (e.g., ransomware).

Modifying or deleting files.

Option Clarification:

A. Rootkit: Hides presence of malware or attacker activities.

B. Trojan: Disguised as legitimate software; does not replicate.

C. Worm: Correct – self-replicating and spreads automatically.

D. Adware: Primarily shows ads; not typically destructive or self-replicating.

WEP encryption is an outdated and insecure method of protecting wireless networks from unauthorized access and eavesdropping. WEP uses a static key that can be easily cracked by various tools and techniques, such as capturing the initialization vectors, brute-forcing the key, or exploiting the weak key scheduling algorithm1. Therefore, you should recommend a more secure encryption method to enhance the security of the company’s wireless network.

One of the most suitable replacements for WEP encryption is WPA2-PSK with AES encryption. WPA2 stands for Wi-Fi Protected Access 2, which is a security standard that improves upon the previous WPA standard. WPA2 uses a robust encryption algorithm called AES, which stands for Advanced Encryption Standard. AES is a block cipher that uses a 128-bit key and is considered to be very secure and resistant to attacks2.

WPA2-PSK stands for WPA2 Pre-Shared Key, which is a mode of WPA2 that uses a passphrase or a password to generate the encryption key. The passphrase or password must be entered by the users who want to connect to the wireless network. The key is then derived from the passphrase or password using a function called PBKDF2, which stands for Password-Based Key Derivation Function 2. PBKDF2 adds a salt and a number of iterations to the passphrase or password to make it harder to crack3.

WPA2-PSK with AES encryption offers several advantages over WEP encryption, such as:

It uses a dynamic key that changes with each session, instead of a static key that remains the same.

It uses a stronger encryption algorithm that is more difficult to break, instead of a weaker encryption algorithm that is more vulnerable to attacks.

It uses a longer key that provides more security, instead of a shorter key that provides less security.

It uses a more secure key derivation function that adds complexity and randomness, instead of a simple key generation function that is predictable and flawed.

Therefore, you should recommend WPA2-PSK with AES encryption as a suitable replacement to enhance the security of the company’s wireless network.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From CEH v13 Guide:

The Network Time Protocol (NTP) is used by systems, including Linux servers, to synchronize their clocks with a time server. If NTP fails, time discrepancies may lead to inaccurate log records and affect security monitoring.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 17: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots – Log Tampering

“Accurate timekeeping is essential for proper logging and correlation. NTP ensures system time is synchronized across hosts.”

=

A Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) is a security policy enforcement point, either on-premises or in the cloud, that administers an organization’s enterprise security policies when users attempt to access its cloud-based resources. A CASB can provide unified security management across multiple cloud platforms, as it can monitor cloud activity, enforce security policies, identify and respond to threats, and maintain visibility of all cloud resources. A CASB can also integrate with other security tools, such as data loss prevention (DLP), encryption, malware detection, and identity and access management (IAM), to enhance the security posture of the organization.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as using a CASB. Using a hardware-based firewall to secure all cloud resources may not be compatible with the dynamic and scalable nature of the cloud, as it may introduce latency, complexity, and cost. Implementing separate security management tools for each cloud platform may create inconsistency, inefficiency, and confusion, as each tool may have different features, interfaces, and configurations. Relying on the built-in security features of each cloud platform may not be sufficient or comprehensive, as each platform may have different levels of security, compliance, and functionality. References:

What Is a Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB)? | Microsoft

What Is a CASB? - Cloud Access Security Broker - Cisco

What is a Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB)?

Pharming is a cyberattack technique in which malicious code is used to redirect a website’s traffic to a fraudulent or malicious website without the user's knowledge. This redirection typically occurs through:

DNS poisoning or host file modification

Exploitation of vulnerabilities in DNS servers or user machines

Pharming aims to collect sensitive data (like usernames, passwords, credit card details) by making users believe they are interacting with a legitimate website when, in fact, they are on a fake one.

As per CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Pharming is a server-side or client-side attack that manipulates how URLs are resolved.

It differs from phishing in that it does not rely on fake emails or social engineering but rather on redirecting web traffic via compromised DNS infrastructure or local configuration.

Incorrect Options:

A. Spimming is the use of spam over instant messaging.

C. Phishing involves tricking users through fake emails or messages.

D. Spear-phishing is a targeted version of phishing directed at specific individuals or roles.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 09: Social Engineering

Section: “Phishing and Pharming Attacks”

Subsection: “Differences Between Phishing and Pharming”

The scenario describes an injection attack involving Server Side Includes (SSI). SSI directives are instructions placed in web pages that are executed by the web server before the page is sent to the user. If user input is improperly validated and directly used in an SSI-enabled environment, attackers can inject malicious SSI directives (such as file manipulation commands).

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Server-Side Includes (SSI) Injection occurs when attackers submit specially crafted input that is included in server responses and interpreted as SSI directives.

These directives can perform dangerous actions like:

Reading sensitive files (e.g., /etc/passwd)

Deleting or modifying files

Running shell commands via #exec directive

Incorrect options:

A. Server-side template injection is related to template engines like Jinja2 or Twig.

B. Server-side JS injection applies to environments like Node.js.

C. CRLF injection manipulates HTTP headers, not SSI parsing.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Injection Flaws”

Subsection: “SSI Injection”

Lab Reference: CEH iLabs – Web Application Exploitation

=

https://www.offensive-security.com/metasploit-unleashed/msfencode/

One of the best ways to avoid being stopped by antivirus software is to encode our payload with msfencode. Msfencode is a useful tool that alters the code in an executable so that it looks different to antivirus software but will still run the same way. Much as the binary attachment in email is encoded in Base64, msfencode encodes the original executable in a new binary. Then, when the executable is run, msfencode decodes the original code into memory and exe-cutes it.

CEH v13 identifies misconfigured cloud security groups as the leading cause of cloud data exposure. Open ports, public storage buckets, and overly permissive firewall rules frequently expose sensitive data.

Brute force and DoS do not directly expose stored data, and side-channel attacks are rare and advanced.

Mobile Remote Access Trojans (RATs) are highlighted in CEH v13 Mobile Platform Hacking as one of the most dangerous threats. Once installed, a mobile RAT provides attackers persistent, covert access to devices, allowing screen capture, keystroke logging, microphone activation, and data exfiltration.

Unlike MitM or clickjacking, RATs operate post-compromise, often disguised as legitimate apps. Jailbreaking is detectable via integrity checks, but RATs can remain hidden even on non-rooted devices.

CEH v13 emphasizes that RATs bypass traditional defenses, including antivirus and MDM, making them extremely difficult to detect. Hence, Option C is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_(wireless_networks)

An evil twin attack is a hack attack in which a hacker sets up a fake Wi-Fi network that looks like a legitimate access point to steal victims’ sensitive details. Most often, the victims of such attacks are ordinary people like you and me.

The attack can be performed as a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. The fake Wi-Fi access point is used to eavesdrop on users and steal their login credentials or other sensitive information. Because the hacker owns the equipment being used, the victim will have no idea that the hacker might be intercepting things like bank transactions.

An evil twin access point can also be used in a phishing scam. In this type of attack, victims will connect to the evil twin and will be lured to a phishing site. It will prompt them to enter their sensitive data, such as their login details. These, of course, will be sent straight to the hacker. Once the hacker gets them, they might simply disconnect the victim and show that the server is temporarily unavailable.

ADDITION: It may not seem obvious what happened. The problem is in the question statement. The attackers were not Alice and John, who were able to connect to the network without a password, but on the contrary, they were attacked and forced to connect to a fake network, and not to the real network belonging to Jane.

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.

Per CEH v13 Official Courseware – Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking, ethical hackers and penetration testers are bound by legal and professional standards. When illegal activities such as human trafficking are discovered:

The ethical response is to cease operations and report the findings to the appropriate legal authorities.

Continuing work, ignoring the findings, or confronting the client personally is both unprofessional and may potentially expose the tester to legal liability.

Evilginx Evilginx is a man-in-the-middle attack framework used for phishing credentials and session cookies of any web service. It's core runs on Nginx HTTP server, which utilizes proxy_pass and sub_filter to proxy and modify HTTP content, while intercepting traffic between client and server.

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.

Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) enumeration involves querying devices on the network for information such as routing tables, interface statistics, and system details.

Useful tools include:

A. SNMPUtil: A command-line Microsoft utility for sending SNMP requests.

B. SNScan: Tool from Foundstone for SNMP scanning and enumeration.

C. SNMPScan: Lightweight tool for scanning networks for SNMP-enabled devices.

D. SolarWinds IP Network Browser: A commercial tool for graphical SNMP enumeration.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Subsection: SNMP Enumeration Tools

Incorrect Option:

E. NMap can detect SNMP services, but is not specialized for SNMP enumeration like the others.

White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) is a method of software testing that tests internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (i.e. black-box testing). In white-box testing, an internal perspective of the system, as well as programming skills, are used to design test cases. The tester chooses inputs to exercise paths through the code and determine the expected outputs. This is analogous to testing nodes in a circuit, e.g. in-circuit testing (ICT). White-box testing can be applied at the unit, integration and system levels of the software testing process. Although traditional testers tended to think of white-box testing as being done at the unit level, it is used for integration and system testing more frequently today. It can test paths within a unit, paths between units during integration, and between subsystems during a system-level test. Though this method of test design can uncover many errors or problems, it has the potential to miss unimplemented parts of the specification or missing requirements. Where white-box testing is design-driven,[1] that is, driven exclusively by agreed specifications of how each component of the software is required to behave (as in DO-178C and ISO 26262 processes) then white-box test techniques can accomplish assessment for unimplemented or missing requirements.

White-box test design techniques include the following code coverage criteria:

· Control flow testing

· Data flow testing

· Branch testing

· Statement coverage

· Decision coverage

· Modified condition/decision coverage

· Prime path testing

· Path testing

Split DNS (also known as Split-Horizon DNS) is a configuration where internal users and external users receive different DNS responses. Typically, one DNS server resides in the DMZ for public access, and another is inside the network for internal name resolution.

???? Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide, Module 9: System Hacking / Perimeter Security

“Split DNS allows different DNS records to be presented based on whether the requester is from inside or outside the organization’s network.”

? Incorrect options:

A. DynDNS is a dynamic DNS provider.

B. DNS Scheme is a non-standard term.

C. DNSSEC is a security extension for DNS, not a deployment model.

CEH v13 identifies encrypted communication channels as one of the most common and effective firewall evasion techniques. Firewalls that rely on packet inspection or signature-based filtering often cannot inspect encrypted payloads without SSL/TLS interception capabilities.

By encrypting malicious traffic—using HTTPS, VPN tunnels, or encrypted C2 channels—attackers can bypass firewall rules that inspect packet contents. CEH v13 emphasizes that this technique is widely used in malware communication, data exfiltration, and command-and-control operations.

IP spoofing (Option A) is limited by ingress and egress filtering and is less effective against modern firewalls. Open-source operating systems (Option B) do not inherently evade firewalls. Social engineering (Option D) targets users, not firewalls.

Therefore, Option C is the correct and CEH-aligned answer.

The security strategy that you would likely suggest is to adopt a Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy involving ongoing prediction, prevention, detection, and response actions to ensure comprehensive computer network defense. This strategy is based on the concept of continuous monitoring and improvement of the security posture of an organization, using a feedback loop that integrates various security activities and technologies. A Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy aims to proactively identify and mitigate emerging threats, vulnerabilities, and risks, as well as to respond effectively and efficiently to security incidents and breaches. A Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy can help enhance the organization’s security stance by providing the following benefits12:

It can reduce the attack surface and the exposure time of the organization’s network infrastructure, by applying timely patches, updates, and configurations, as well as by implementing security controls and policies.

It can increase the visibility and awareness of the organization’s network activity and behavior, by collecting, analyzing, and correlating data from various sources, such as logs, sensors, alerts, and reports.

It can improve the detection and prevention capabilities of the organization, by using advanced tools and techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, threat intelligence, and behavioral analytics, to identify and block malicious or anomalous patterns and indicators.

It can enhance the response and recovery processes of the organization, by using automated and orchestrated actions, such as isolation, quarantine, remediation, and restoration, to contain and resolve security incidents and breaches, as well as by conducting lessons learned and root cause analysis to prevent recurrence.

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

A. Develop an in-depth Risk Management process, involving identification, assessment, treatment, tracking, and review of risks to control the potential effects on the organization: This option is not sufficient because risk management is only one aspect of a comprehensive security strategy, and it does not address the dynamic and evolving nature of cyber threats and vulnerabilities. Risk management is a process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations, as well as monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the risk treatment measures3. Risk management can help the organization prioritize and allocate resources for security, but it cannot guarantee the prevention or detection of security incidents and breaches, nor the response and recovery from them.

B. Establish a Defense-in-Depth strategy, incorporating multiple layers of security measures to increase the complexity and decrease the likelihood of a successful attack: This option is not optimal because defense-in-depth is a traditional and static approach to security, and it may not be able to cope with the sophisticated and persistent attacks that exploit unknown or zero-day vulnerabilities. Defense-in-depth is a strategy of implementing multiple and diverse security controls and mechanisms at different layers of the organization’s network infrastructure, such as perimeter, network, endpoint, application, and data, to provide redundancy and resilience against attacks4. Defense-in-depth can help the organization protect its assets and systems from unauthorized access or damage, but it cannot ensure the timely detection and response to security incidents and breaches, nor the continuous improvement of the security posture.

D. Implement an Information Assurance (IA) policy focusing on ensuring the integrity, availability, confidentiality, and authenticity of information systems: This option is not comprehensive because information assurance is a subset of cybersecurity, and it does not cover all the aspects of a holistic security strategy. Information assurance is a discipline of managing the risks associated with the use, processing, storage, and transmission of information and data, and ensuring the protection of the information and data from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction5. Information assurance can help the organization safeguard its information and data from compromise or loss, but it does not address the prevention, detection, and response to security incidents and breaches, nor the adaptation and innovation of the security technologies and processes.

Netcat does not support encryption natively. To securely transmit data over the network, the attacker must use a variant like Cryptcat, which adds symmetric encryption to standard netcat functionality.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing and Secure Communication

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Cryptcat is a netcat clone that supports encryption. For secure file transfers or remote shell access, cryptcat is the recommended tool.”

Incorrect Options:

A/B/C: These are invalid or non-existent netcat parameters.

There is no single, standardized classification of cross-site scripting flaws, but most experts distinguish between at least two primary flavors of XSS flaws: non-persistent and persistent. In this issue, we consider the non-persistent cross-site scripting vulnerability.

The non-persistent (or reflected) cross-site scripting vulnerability is by far the most basic type of web vulnerability. These holes show up when the data provided by a web client, most commonly in HTTP query parameters (e.g. HTML form submission), is used immediately by server-side scripts to parse and display a page of results for and to that user, without properly sanitizing the content.

Because HTML documents have a flat, serial structure that mixes control statements, formatting, and the actual content, any non-validated user-supplied data included in the resulting page without proper HTML encoding, may lead to markup injection. A classic example of a potential vector is a site search engine: if one searches for a string, the search string will typically be redisplayed verbatim on the result page to indicate what was searched for. If this response does not properly escape or reject HTML control characters, a cross-site scripting flaw will ensue.

The Snort rule in the image is detecting suspicious bind attempts over DCERPC (Distributed Computing Environment/Remote Procedure Call), specifically targeting ports 135 (RPC) and 445 (SMB) with crafted content. The rule references CVE CAN-2003-0352.

CVE-2003-0352 is associated with the DCOM RPC vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that was exploited by the MS Blaster (also known as Lovsan) worm in 2003.

Key Indicators from the Snort Rule:

alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET any -> $HOME_NET 135

content includes DCERPC binding pattern (|05| and |0b| with specific binary patterns)

Reference to CVE-2003-0352

Class type: attempted-admin

The MS Blaster worm exploited this vulnerability by sending a specially crafted RPC request to port 135, allowing remote code execution.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 11: Session Hijacking

Discussion of historic worms and their exploit signatures, including MS Blaster.

Incorrect Options:

A. WebDav: Typically uses HTTP/HTTPS and was exploited by Nimda.

B. SQL Slammer: Targeted UDP port 1434 (SQL Server), not TCP 135/445.

D. MyDoom: Spread via email and exploited Windows file-sharing mechanisms (port 3127), not DCERPC.

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

Trident is a highly sophisticated spyware tool used in mobile surveillance operations. It exploits multiple zero-day vulnerabilities to jailbreak iPhones remotely and grant full control to the attacker. It is famously associated with the Pegasus spyware, which was able to:

Record calls and ambient sound

Capture screenshots

Read SMS, emails, and contacts

Monitor GPS and application use

As per CEH v13:

Trident uses a chain of exploits to compromise iOS devices without physical access.

It was used in highly targeted attacks against journalists, activists, and government officials.

Incorrect Options:

A. DroidSheep is an Android tool for session hijacking on unsecured Wi-Fi.

B. Androrat is a RAT for Android devices.

C. Zscaler is a cloud security platform, not malware.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 17: Hacking Mobile Platforms

Section: “iOS Malware”

Subsection: “Spyware like Trident and Pegasus”

=

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.

CEH describes FIN scans as stealthy scans that send packets with the FIN flag without initiating a TCP handshake. According to TCP RFC behavior, closed ports respond with RST packets while open ports ignore the probe, producing no response. This allows enumeration of port states while evading IDS systems that typically monitor SYN-based scans.

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.

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.

Enumeration is the process of extracting usernames, shares, services, and other system-specific information from a target system. Tools used for enumeration include:

B. USER2SID: Resolves a username to its associated Security Identifier (SID).

D. SID2USER: Resolves an SID back to the corresponding username.

E. DumpSec: A powerful GUI tool used to enumerate users, shares, and permissions on Windows systems.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Section: NetBIOS and Windows Enumeration Tools

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“USER2SID and SID2USER are classic tools used to map usernames to SIDs and vice versa during Windows enumeration. DumpSec can enumerate user accounts, group memberships, and shared resources on systems with open permissions.”

Incorrect Options:

A. SolarWinds: Primarily a network performance monitoring tool, not designed for enumeration.

C. Cheops: A network mapping tool, not an enumeration utility.

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 .

Incident Handling and Response Incident handling and response (IH&R) is the process of taking organized and careful steps when reacting to a security incident or cyberattack. Steps involved in the IH&R process: 3.Incident Triage - The IH&R team further analyzes the compromised device to find incident details such as the type of attack, its severity, target, impact, and method of propagation, and any vulnerabilities it exploited. (P.84/68)

In CEH v13 Module 04: Enumeration and Module 06: Malware Threats, when investigating Command-and-Control (C2) communication, it is important to determine whether the communication actually occurred and what data was sent.

C. Internet Firewall/Proxy log

Best source to confirm outbound connections to external IPs.

Proxy logs show which internal host made the connection, the timestamp, and sometimes even URL and payload.

Firewalls can indicate port usage, traffic volume, and connection duration.

This data gives a direct view of how severe the incident is, whether data exfiltration occurred, and which internal system is affected.

Why Other Options Are Less Effective Initially:

A. IDS Log: Only tells you that an alert was generated. May be false positive or triggered by a failed connection.

B. Event logs on Domain Controller: Useful for user account behavior, but not for network connections.

D. Event logs on the PC: May lack detail or be tampered with by malware.

L0phtCrack is a password auditing and recovery tool. It can:

Capture password hashes over the network (e.g., via SMB).

Crack password hashes using dictionary, brute-force, or hybrid attacks.

It’s particularly effective when used on SMB-based challenge-response authentication (NTLM/LM) captured via packet sniffing.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Module 6: Malware Threats

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“L0phtCrack can sniff SMB authentication exchanges from network traffic and extract NTLM password hashes to crack them offline.”

Incorrect Options:

A: This is possible (hence A is wrong).

B: Netbus is a backdoor/trojan tool.

C: NTFSDOS is used to read NTFS partitions under DOS, not for password cracking.

Adware, or advertising supported computer code, is computer code that displays unwanted advertisements on your pc. Adware programs can tend to serve you pop-up ads, will modification your browser’s homepage, add spyware and simply bombard your device with advertisements. Adware may be a additional summary name for doubtless unwanted programs. It’s roughly a virulent disease and it’s going to not be as clearly malicious as a great deal of different problematic code floating around on the net. create no mistake concerning it, though, that adware has to return off of no matter machine it’s on. Not solely will adware be extremely annoying whenever you utilize your machine, it might additionally cause semipermanent problems for your device.

Adware a network users the browser to gather your internet browsing history so as to ’target’ advertisements that appear tailored to your interests. At their most innocuous, adware infections square measure simply annoying. as an example, adware barrages you with pop-up ads that may create your net expertise markedly slower and additional labor intensive.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A covert channel is any communication path that allows data to be transferred in violation of a system’s security policy. It’s commonly used by malware or Trojans to exfiltrate data or send commands undetected.

Examples include:

Encoding data in TCP headers (unused bits)

Timing of packets (timing channel)

Use of legitimate protocols to piggyback malicious traffic

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats ? Trojans and Covert Channels

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.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could be a law the U.S. Congress passed on July thirty of that year to assist defend investors from fallacious money coverage by companies.Also called the SOX Act of 2002 and also the company Responsibility Act of 2002, it mandated strict reforms to existing securities rules and obligatory powerful new penalties on law breakers.

The Sarbanes-Oxley law Act of 2002 came in response to money scandals within the early 2000s involving in public listed corporations like Enron Corporation, Tyco International plc, and WorldCom. The high-profile frauds cask capitalist confidence within the trustiness of company money statements Associate in Nursingd light-emitting diode several to demand an overhaul of decades-old restrictive standards.

CEH v13 explains that mobile antivirus solutions rely heavily on signatures and known exploit patterns. A custom exploit using obfuscation is far more likely to evade detection.

Metasploit payloads and rootkits are commonly flagged, and SMS phishing relies on user interaction. Therefore, custom obfuscated exploit code is the most stealthy and effective method.

CEH v13 emphasizes that well-secured applications use HTTPS, secure cookies, and session regeneration to defend against common session hijacking techniques. In such hardened environments, traditional attacks like session fixation or simple XSS-based token theft often fail because session IDs change at login and secure flags prevent exposure. The remaining viable approach is session token prediction, an advanced attack that analyzes statistical patterns, entropy weaknesses, or timing issues in session ID generation algorithms. CEH discusses that weak pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) or predictable sequences can allow attackers to compute a valid session ID without intercepting traffic. This method bypasses cookie security and does not rely on manipulating user input, making it suitable for environments with strong defenses. MITM attacks (Option A) require certificate compromise, which is impractical. Session fixation (Option B) fails because the application regenerates tokens. XSS (Option D) is ineffective when secure flags prevent JavaScript access to cookies. Thus, token prediction is the correct answer.

The CEH Web Application Security module explains that race conditions occur when systems improperly handle simultaneous requests, leading to unexpected behavior. In token-based authentication systems, poor synchronization between token expiration checks and validation logic can allow attackers to exploit timing gaps.

The observed pattern—failed attempts with expired tokens followed by successful access—suggests the attacker exploited a race condition where the application inconsistently validated token state.

Option C is correct.

Option A would not involve expired tokens.

Option B is highly impractical given secure token entropy.

Option D typically succeeds without repeated failures.

CEH highlights race conditions as subtle but dangerous logic flaws.

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.

Error-based SQL Injection is a type of in-band SQL Injection attack that relies on error messages thrown by the database server to obtain information about the structure of the database. In some cases, error-based SQL injection alone is enough for an attacker to enumerate an entire database.

The ethical hacker is likely to use this type of SQL Injection attack because the application responds to logically incorrect queries with detailed error messages that divulge the underlying database’s structure. This means that the attacker can craft malicious SQL queries that trigger errors and reveal information such as table names, column names, data types, etc. The attacker can then use this information to construct more complex queries that extract data from the database.

For example, if the application uses the following query to display the username of a user based on the user ID:

SELECT username FROM users WHERE id = '$id'

The attacker can inject a single quote at the end of the user ID parameter to cause a syntax error:

SELECT username FROM users WHERE id = '1'

The application might display an error message like this:

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ''1'' at line 1

This error message reveals that the database server is MySQL and that the user ID parameter is enclosed in single quotes. The attacker can then use other techniques such as UNION, subqueries, or conditional statements to manipulate the query and retrieve data from other tables or columns.

The TTL (Time-To-Live) and TCP window size are commonly used values for passive OS fingerprinting. Different operating systems set default values for these fields in IP and TCP headers.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware and tools like Nmap and Netcraft:

A TTL of 64 and TCP window size of 5840 is a strong indicator of a Linux-based operating system.

This combination is one of the signature responses used in tools such as Nmap and p0f to fingerprint OS remotely.

Here’s a general reference table:

OS

Default TTL

TCP Window Size

Windows

128

8192/65535

Linux

64

5840

Solaris

255

8760

Mac OS

64

65535

Therefore, TTL: 64 + Window Size: 5840 = Linux OS

Incorrect Options:

A. Solaris typically has a TTL of 255 and a different window size.

B. Windows defaults to TTL 128.

C. Mac OS uses TTL 64 but has a window size of 65535.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 03: Scanning Networks

Section: “OS Detection Using TTL and TCP Window Size”

Tools: Nmap OS Fingerprinting, Xprobe2

CEH iLab: OS Fingerprinting with TCP/IP Stack Behavior

=

https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/security-awareness/ransomware/what-is-fileless-malware.html

Fileless malware can easily evade various security controls, organizations need to focus on monitoring, detecting, and preventing malicious activities instead of using traditional approaches such as scanning for malware through file signatures.Also known as non-malware, infects legitimate software, applications, and other protocols existing in the system to perform various malicious activities.It resides in the system’s RAM. It injects malicious code into the running processes. (P.966/950)

https://www.infocyte.com/blog/2019/02/16/cybersecurity-101-what-you-need-to-know-about-false-positives-and-false-negatives/

False positives are mislabeled security alerts, indicating there is a threat when in actuality, there isn’t. These false/non-malicious alerts (SIEM events) increase noise for already over-worked security teams and can include software bugs, poorly written software, or unrecognized network traffic.

False negatives are uncaught cyber threats — overlooked by security tooling because they’re dormant, highly sophisticated (i.e. file-less or capable of lateral movement) or the security infrastructure in place lacks the technological ability to detect these attacks.

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.”

Rootkits can deeply infect and compromise a system’s kernel, making them very difficult to detect or remove fully. Even advanced antivirus solutions may miss them.

The most secure and recommended response is:

Completely wipe the compromised system.

Reinstall the OS from known good (clean) media.

Apply all patches and updates.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats ? Rootkit Handling

Incorrect Options:

A: Copying files might transfer infected components.

B: Trap and trace is investigative, not remedial.

C: Deleting files may not fully remove the rootkit.

D: Backups might be infected if taken post-compromise.

These types of attacks occur when faults or glitches are INJECTED into the Power supply that can be used for remote execution.

In CEH v13 Module 14: Cryptography, Serpent is detailed as one of the finalists in the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) competition, known for its strong security characteristics.

Key Features of Serpent:

128-bit block size, and key sizes of 128, 192, or 256 bits.

Uses 32 rounds of substitution and permutation.

Operates on four 32-bit words per block.

Employs 8 different S-boxes, each with a 4-bit input and 4-bit output.

Designed to provide high security and resistance against differential cryptanalysis.

Option Clarification:

A. TEA: Uses a Feistel structure with simple operations, but not 32 rounds with S-boxes.

B. CAST-128: Has 64-bit block size and fewer rounds.

C. RC5: Variable block and key sizes but doesn’t use 32 rounds with fixed S-box design.

D. Serpent: Matches all given features.

Buffer overflow this attack is an anomaly that happens when software writing data to a buffer overflows the buffer’s capacity, leading to adjacent memory locations being overwritten. In other words, an excessive amount of information is being passed into a container that doesn’t have enough space, which information finishes up replacing data in adjacent containers.

Buffer overflows are often exploited by attackers with a goal of modifying a computer’s memory so as to undermine or take hold of program execution.

What’s a buffer?

A buffer, or data buffer, is a neighborhood of physical memory storage wont to temporarily store data while it’s being moved from one place to a different . These buffers typically sleep in RAM memory. Computers frequently use buffers to assist improve performance; latest hard drives cash in of buffering to efficiently access data, and lots of online services also use buffers. for instance , buffers are frequently utilized in online video streaming to stop interruption. When a video is streamed, the video player downloads and stores perhaps 20% of the video at a time during a buffer then streams from that buffer. This way, minor drops in connection speed or quick service disruptions won’t affect the video stream performance.

Buffers are designed to contain specific amounts of knowledge . Unless the program utilizing the buffer has built-in instructions to discard data when an excessive amount of is shipped to the buffer, the program will overwrite data in memory adjacent to the buffer.

Buffer overflows are often exploited by attackers to corrupt software. Despite being well-understood, buffer overflow attacks are still a serious security problem that torment cyber-security teams. In 2014 a threat referred to as ‘heartbleed’ exposed many many users to attack due to a buffer overflow vulnerability in SSL software.

How do attackers exploit buffer overflows?

An attacker can deliberately feed a carefully crafted input into a program which will cause the program to undertake and store that input during a buffer that isn’t large enough, overwriting portions of memory connected to the buffer space. If the memory layout of the program is well-defined, the attacker can deliberately overwrite areas known to contain executable code. The attacker can then replace this code together with his own executable code, which may drastically change how the program is meant to figure .

For example if the overwritten part in memory contains a pointer (an object that points to a different place in memory) the attacker’s code could replace that code with another pointer that points to an exploit payload. this will transfer control of the entire program over to the

attacker’s code.

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.

In CEH v13 Module 13: Hacking Web Applications, this exact payload is an example of an XXE (XML External Entity) Attack.

XXE Attack:

Exploits the way XML parsers process DOCTYPE declarations.

The payload references a local file (/etc/passwd), allowing local file inclusion.

Can result in sensitive file disclosure, SSRF, or Denial of Service (DoS).

Option Clarification:

A. XXE: Correct – targets vulnerable XML parsers.

B. SQLi: Targets SQL databases with ' OR '1'='1-type injections.

C. IDOR: Insecure Direct Object Reference, not related to XML.

D. XSS: Cross-site scripting; this is XML-based, not JavaScript injection.

Shellshock (CVE-2014-6271) is a vulnerability in the GNU Bash (Bourne Again Shell) that allows remote code execution via crafted environment variables. It was disclosed in 2014 and had a wide impact on systems that relied on Bash as a command-line shell interpreter.

Affected systems include:

Linux distributions (Red Hat, Debian, CentOS, Ubuntu, etc.)

Unix variants (e.g., FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.)

Apple macOS (formerly OS X), since it uses Bash as the default shell

Windows systems were not directly affected because they do not use Bash by default. Bash is not a native component of Windows operating systems, and Shellshock exploits Bash-specific behavior. Only Windows systems where Bash was manually installed through a third-party method or environment (e.g., Cygwin) might be susceptible — but by default, Windows systems are immune.

Incorrect options:

A. Linux — Affected

B. Unix — Affected

C. OS X — Affected

D. Windows — Not directly affected (Correct answer)

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.

One of the most common Nmap usage scenarios is scanning an Ethernet LAN. Most LANs, especially those that use the private address range granted by RFC 1918, do not always use the overwhelming majority of IP addresses. When Nmap attempts to send a raw IP packet, such as an ICMP echo request, the OS must determine a destination hardware (ARP) address, such as the target IP, so that the Ethernet frame can be properly addressed. .. This is required to issue a series of ARP requests. This is best illustrated by an example where a ping scan is attempted against an Area Ethernet host. The –send-ip option tells Nmap to send IP-level packets (rather than raw Ethernet), even on area networks. The Wireshark output of the three ARP requests and their timing have been pasted into the session.

Raw IP ping scan example for offline targets

This example took quite a couple of seconds to finish because the (Linux) OS sent three ARP requests at 1 second intervals before abandoning the host. Waiting for a few seconds is excessive, as long as the ARP response usually arrives within a few milliseconds. Reducing this timeout period is not a priority for OS vendors, as the overwhelming majority of packets are sent to the host that actually exists. Nmap, on the other hand, needs to send packets to 16 million IP s given a target like 10.0.0.0/8. Many targets are pinged in parallel, but waiting 2 seconds each is very delayed.

There is another problem with raw IP ping scans on the LAN. If the destination host turns out to be unresponsive, as in the previous example, the source host usually adds an incomplete entry for that destination IP to the kernel ARP table. ARP tablespaces are finite and some operating systems become unresponsive when full. If Nmap is used in rawIP mode (–send-ip), Nmap may have to wait a few minutes for the ARP cache entry to expire before continuing host discovery.

ARP scans solve both problems by giving Nmap the highest priority. Nmap issues raw ARP requests and handles retransmissions and timeout periods in its sole discretion. The system ARP cache is bypassed. The example shows the difference. This ARP scan takes just over a tenth of the time it takes for an equivalent IP.

Example b ARP ping scan of offline target

In example b, neither the -PR option nor the -send-eth option has any effect. This is often because ARP has a default scan type on the Area Ethernet network when scanning Ethernet hosts that Nmap discovers. This includes traditional wired Ethernet as 802.11 wireless networks. As mentioned above, ARP scanning is not only more efficient, but also more accurate. Hosts frequently block IP-based ping packets, but usually cannot block ARP requests or responses and communicate over the network.Nmap uses ARP instead of all targets on equivalent targets, even if different ping types (such as -PE and -PS) are specified. LAN.. If you do not need to attempt an ARP scan at all, specify –send-ip as shown in Example a “Raw IP Ping Scan for Offline Targets”.

If you give Nmap control to send raw Ethernet frames, Nmap can also adjust the source MAC address. If you have the only PowerBook in your security conference room and a large ARP scan is initiated from an Apple-registered MAC address, your head may turn to you. Use the –spoof-mac option to spoof the MAC address as described in the MAC Address Spoofing section.

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.

According to the Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Reconnaissance and Footprinting module, DNS cache snooping is a passive information-gathering technique used to determine whether a specific DNS record exists in a server’s cache. Attackers commonly use the dig +norecurse option to prevent the DNS server from querying other DNS servers, thereby revealing only cached results.

When a DNS server responds with NOERROR but does not return an answer, it indicates that the domain name itself is valid, but the requested record is not present in the DNS cache. CEH documentation explains that this situation usually occurs when no internal client has recently queried that domain, so the DNS server has no cached entry for it.

Option A is incorrect because a cached record would return a valid answer section.

Option B is incorrect because NOERROR explicitly means the DNS query was processed successfully.

Option D is incorrect because an expired or non-existent domain would typically return NXDOMAIN, not NOERROR.

CEH materials highlight that attackers use DNS cache snooping to infer user behavior, internal browsing habits, and potential target systems within an organization—making option C the correct conclusion.

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 explains that SQL injection testing should begin with controlled, intentional manipulation of SQL syntax to determine whether user input is improperly concatenated into backend queries. While destructive queries like DROP TABLE are not recommended in real-world ethical hacking engagements, CEH uses this example as a conceptual demonstration of how SQLi can influence database commands. In practice, a penetration tester would more safely use benign tautologies such as ' OR '1'='1 to test whether unauthorized data is returned. However, within CEH’s theoretical framing, injecting a clearly malicious SQL command demonstrates whether the input is executed at the database level. This validates improper sanitization, the use of dynamic SQL queries, and missing parameterized input handling. CEH stresses that SQLi is among the most critical vulnerabilities because it allows attackers to bypass authentication, exfiltrate data, or manipulate the database structure. XSS, brute-forcing, and directory traversal do not test SQL query manipulation and therefore do not confirm SQL injection.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, banner grabbing is defined as a technique used during reconnaissance to capture service banners that provide information about:

Web server version

Operating system

Service details

In This Case:

The engineer used Netcat to connect to port 80 (HTTP).

The response reveals the web server software (Microsoft-IIS/6), which is typical of a banner returned in the server's HTTP response headers.

This technique helps identify vulnerable versions of services.

Other Options:

B. SQL injection: Involves sending SQL payloads — unrelated here.

C. Whois query: Provides domain registration info — unrelated.

D. Cross-site scripting: Requires injecting scripts into a web app — not relevant here.

Social engineering attacks that target business processes are especially effective when they mimic legitimate workflows. CEH learning materials emphasize that attackers often exploit trust relationships and organizational procedures rather than attempting broad or generic phishing methods. In the context of HR operations, onboarding portals are highly trusted and frequently accessed by new employees who expect to enter personal information, submit documents, and receive initial network credentials. By creating a fake onboarding portal that closely resembles the organization’s internal system, an attacker can collect credentials without triggering suspicion because the action being requested appears normal and expected. This method leverages procedural familiarity, brand consistency, and the implied authority of HR communications, making it far more effective than generic phishing emails or unsolicited social media messages. Phone calls, while sometimes useful, involve real-time interaction and increase the chance of detection. The fake portal, however, seamlessly integrates into existing processes, making it the most effective and lowest-profile approach for acquiring network credentials.

One may append the comment “–” operator along with the String for the username and whole avoid executing the password segment of the SQL query. Everything when the — operator would be considered as comment and not dead.

To launch such an attack, the value passed for name could be ’OR ‘1’=‘1’ ; —

Statement = “SELECT * FROM ‘CustomerDB’ WHERE ‘name’ = ‘ ”+ userName + “ ‘ AND ‘password’ = ‘ ” + passwd + “ ‘ ; ”

Statement = “SELECT * FROM ‘CustomerDB’ WHERE ‘name’ = ‘ ’ OR ‘1’=‘1‘;– + “ ‘ AND ‘password’ = ‘ ” + passwd + “ ‘ ; ”

All the records from the customer database would be listed.

Yet, another variation of the SQL Injection Attack can be conducted in dbms systems that allow multiple SQL injection statements. Here, we will also create use of the vulnerability in sure dbms whereby a user provided field isn’t strongly used in or isn’t checked for sort constraints.

This could take place once a numeric field is to be employed in a SQL statement; but, the programmer makes no checks to validate that the user supplied input is numeric.

Variation is an evasion technique whereby the attacker can easily evade any comparison statement. The attacker does this by placing characters such as “' or '1'='1'” in any basic injection statement such as “or 1=1” or with other accepted SQL comments.

Evasion Technique: Variation Variation is an evasion technique whereby the attacker can easily evade any comparison statement. The attacker does this by placing characters such as “' or '1'='1'” in any basic injection statement such as “or 1=1” or with other accepted SQL comments. The SQL interprets this as a comparison between two strings or characters instead of two numeric values. As the evaluation of two strings yields a true statement, similarly, the evaluation of two numeric values yields a true statement, thus rendering the evaluation of the complete query unaffected. It is also possible to write many other signatures; thus, there are infinite possibilities of variation as well. The main aim of the attacker is to have a WHERE statement that is always evaluated as “true” so that any mathematical or string comparison can be used, where the SQL can perform the same.

To ensure both confidentiality and non-repudiation for secure email communication, you need to use a combination of symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. Symmetric encryption is a method of encrypting and decrypting data using the same secret key, which is faster and more efficient than asymmetric encryption. Asymmetric encryption is a method of encrypting and decrypting data using a pair of keys: a public key and a private key, which are mathematically related but not identical. Asymmetric encryption can provide authentication, integrity, and non-repudiation, as well as key distribution.

The cryptographic technique that would best serve the purpose is to apply asymmetric encryption with RSA and use the private key for signing. RSA is a widely used algorithm for asymmetric encryption, which is based on the difficulty of factoring large numbers. RSA can be used to encrypt data, as well as to generate digital signatures, which are a way of proving the identity and authenticity of the sender and the integrity of the message.

The steps to implement this technique are as follows1:

Generate a pair of keys for each user: a public key and a private key. The public key can be shared with anyone, while the private key must be kept secret and protected by the user.

When a user wants to send an email to another user, they first encrypt the email content with a symmetric key, such as AES, which is a strong and efficient algorithm for symmetric encryption. The symmetric key is then encrypted with the recipient’s public key, using RSA. The encrypted email and the encrypted symmetric key are then sent to the recipient.

The sender also generates a digital signature for the email, using their private key and a hash function, such as SHA-256, which is a secure and widely used algorithm for generating hashes. A hash function is a mathematical function that takes any input and produces a fixed-length output, called a hash or a digest, that uniquely represents the input. A digital signature is a hash of the email that is encrypted with the sender’s private key, using RSA. The digital signature is then attached to the email and sent to the recipient.

When the recipient receives the email, they first decrypt the symmetric key with their private key, using RSA. They then use the symmetric key to decrypt the email content, using AES. They also verify the digital signature by decrypting it with the sender’s public key, using RSA, and comparing the resulting hash with the hash of the email, using the same hash function. If the hashes match, it means that the email is authentic and has not been tampered with.

Using this technique, the email communication is secure because:

The confidentiality of the email content is ensured by the symmetric encryption with AES, which is hard to break without knowing the symmetric key.

The symmetric key is also protected by the asymmetric encryption with RSA, which is hard to break without knowing the recipient’s private key.

The non-repudiation of the email is ensured by the digital signature with RSA, which is hard to forge without knowing the sender’s private key.

The digital signature also provides authentication and integrity of the email, as it proves that the email was sent by the sender and has not been altered in transit.

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.

If SNMP access is restricted to specific IP addresses (e.g., 192.168.1.0/24), you can bypass access controls by:

Spoofing the source IP to fall within that allowed range.

Using a SNMP set request to instruct the device (e.g., to copy its configuration to a TFTP server).

This is a classic SNMP spoofing attack.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration ? SNMP Enumeration Attacks

In CEH v13 Module 11: Hacking Wireless Networks, Kismet is introduced as a passive wireless sniffer and network detector used primarily on Linux systems.

Kismet passively listens for wireless beacons and data frames.

Can detect hidden SSIDs, rogue APs, and even wireless client behaviors.

Does not transmit any packets, making it stealthy and ideal for wireless reconnaissance.

Option Analysis:

A. Burp Suite: Used for web application testing, not wireless.

B. OpenVAS: Vulnerability scanner, not a packet sniffer.

C. tshark: CLI version of Wireshark, can analyze wired and wireless packets, but not wireless-specific or passive by default.

D. Kismet: Correct wireless packet analyzer for Linux.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From CEH v13 Guide:

Vulnerability identification is the step in the risk assessment process where security flaws or weaknesses are identified in existing systems, policies, or procedures.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 5: Vulnerability Assessment – Risk Assessment Concepts

“Vulnerability identification is the process of discovering existing flaws and weaknesses in systems or processes that may be exploited.”

=

According to CEH v13 Network Scanning and Enumeration, ICMP Echo Requests (ping) are commonly filtered by firewalls and intrusion prevention systems to reduce network reconnaissance exposure. When ICMP Echo Replies are not returned but other services remain operational, the most likely explanation is ICMP filtering rather than host unavailability or compromise.

CEH v13 explicitly states that many organizations configure firewalls to block ICMP Echo Requests while allowing other ICMP types or higher-layer protocols. This practice helps prevent attackers from easily mapping live hosts during the reconnaissance phase.

The other options are incorrect because:

Unused IPs would not necessarily have active services.

A breach would typically present additional symptoms.

Network congestion would affect multiple protocols, not just ICMP.

Thus, blocked ICMP is the correct interpretation.

White-hat hackers perform security assessments with authorization. CEH defines ethical hacking as legal, structured testing of network defenses with the goal of improving security rather than causing harm.

ARP (Address Resolution Protocol) spoofing/poisoning is a common attack in which an attacker sends falsified ARP messages to associate their MAC address with the IP address of another host. To defend against ARP spoofing:

A. Port Security: Limits the number of MAC addresses per port; prevents MAC flooding and spoofing.

B. ARPwatch: Monitors ARP traffic and alerts on unusual changes.

D. Static ARP Entries: Prevent ARP responses from overwriting MAC-IP mappings, effective in small networks.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing

Module 11: Session Hijacking

Module 20: Network Security

Incorrect Options:

C: Firewalls operate at Layer 3+; ARP is a Layer 2 protocol, so firewalls don’t prevent ARP spoofing.

E: Static IP addresses do not prevent ARP poisoning.

CEH v13 states that the only viable way to attack WPA2-PSK is by capturing the four-way handshake. De-authentication forces clients to reconnect, allowing the handshake to be captured and later cracked offline.

MITM, jamming, and rogue AP attacks do not directly expose the PSK.

A Network-based Intrusion Detection System (NIDS) monitors all network traffic for signs of suspicious activity across multiple hosts. In large environments with critical assets (e.g., financial or healthcare networks), NIDS is ideal because it provides visibility into entire network segments, not just individual systems.

NIDS can be deployed at strategic points (e.g., DMZs, VLANs, subnets) to detect unauthorized access, malware activity, or policy violations.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 13: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots

Quote:

“Network-based IDS monitors traffic across an entire subnet or segment and is most effective in large environments to detect malicious activity before it reaches critical assets.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Honeypots attract and log attacker behavior, but do not provide network-wide detection.

B. Firewalls filter traffic but are not detection systems.

D. HIDS monitors activity on a single host only.

=

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.

In CEH v13 Module 11: Hacking Wireless Networks, Wardriving is explained as the practice of driving around with a Wi-Fi-enabled device to detect open or vulnerable wireless networks.

Key Characteristics of Wardriving:

Involves using laptops, smartphones, or specialized devices with Wi-Fi antennas.

Tools like NetStumbler, Kismet, or WiGLE may be used.

Often includes GPS tagging of discovered networks.

Used to identify unsecured access points for later exploitation.

Option Clarification:

A. GPS mapping: May be used with wardriving, but not the act itself.

B. Spectrum analysis: Measures RF spectrum usage; not network discovery.

C. Wardriving: Correct – searching for Wi-Fi networks while driving.

D. Wireless sniffing: Captures traffic; can happen during wardriving, but broader in scope.

The CEH v13 courseware states that insecure communication occurs when mobile applications transmit sensitive data over unencrypted or weakly encrypted channels, exposing information to interception. When an application uses plain HTTP or does not properly validate certificates, attackers can place themselves between the client and server using a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack. This allows them to read session tokens, credentials, API keys, or personal user data as it travels across the network. CEH materials emphasize that MitM attacks are the primary exploitation technique for insecure data transmission because they exploit weaknesses in transport-layer security rather than weaknesses in backend code or authentication mechanisms. SQL injection and CSRF attacks target web application logic, not transport encryption. Brute-force attacks target authentication mechanisms and are unrelated to how data is transmitted. Therefore, the most effective exploitation method is intercepting traffic via MitM to capture or manipulate unencrypted communications.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

An incident checklist is a low-overhead, high-impact solution to improve procedural consistency under pressure. It ensures critical steps are not forgotten during stressful incidents. The checklist can be reused and updated easily and is a recognized best practice in incident response processes.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 19: Incident Response and Forensics ? Incident Handling Procedures

Btlejack is a tool used for attacking Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) connections, including sniffing, jamming, and hijacking.

The -f option specifies the access address of the BLE connection.

The -j option is used to hijack an active BLE connection.

Therefore, the correct syntax to hijack a BLE connection is:

btlejack -f [access_address] -j

This matches Option A: btlejack -f 0x129f3244 -j

Incorrect Options:

B. -c any is used for sniffing any advertising packet but not for hijacking.

C. -d specifies device paths; -s starts a scan but does not hijack.

D. This is likely a malformed or unrelated command in the context of hijacking.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 18: IoT and OT Hacking

Section: “Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) Attacks”

Tool Focus: “Btlejack Command Usage”

CEH iLab: Btlejacking with micro:bit

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

In the seven-layer OSI model of computer networking, the presentation layer is layer 6 and serves as the data translator for the network. It is sometimes called the syntax layer. The presentation layer is responsible for the formatting and delivery of information to the application layer for further processing or display.

Encryption is typically done at this level too, although it can be done on the application, session, transport, or network layers, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Decryption is also handled at the presentation layer. For example, when logging on to bank account sites the presentation layer will decrypt the data as it is received.

A null user is a special connection made to a Windows system without providing a username or password. In older versions of Windows (NT, 2000, XP), null sessions could be used to anonymously connect to IPC$ share and enumerate:

Users

Groups

Shares

Policies

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration ? Null Sessions

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Null users are unauthenticated sessions used to access certain system resources without credentials. These are commonly used in enumeration attacks.”

In a Windows network, nongovernmental organization (New Technology) local area network Manager (NTLM) could be a suite of Microsoft security protocols supposed to produce authentication, integrity, and confidentiality to users.NTLM is that the successor to the authentication protocol in Microsoft local area network Manager (LANMAN), Associate in Nursing older Microsoft product. The NTLM protocol suite is enforced in an exceedingly Security Support supplier, which mixes the local area network Manager authentication protocol, NTLMv1, NTLMv2 and NTLM2 Session protocols in an exceedingly single package. whether or not these protocols area unit used or will be used on a system is ruled by cluster Policy settings, that totally different|completely different} versions of Windows have different default settings. NTLM passwords area unit thought-about weak as a result of they will be brute-forced very simply with fashionable hardware.

NTLM could be a challenge-response authentication protocol that uses 3 messages to authenticate a consumer in an exceedingly affiliation orientating setting (connectionless is similar), and a fourth extra message if integrity is desired.

First, the consumer establishes a network path to the server and sends a NEGOTIATE_MESSAGE advertising its capabilities.

Next, the server responds with CHALLENGE_MESSAGE that is employed to determine the identity of the consumer.

Finally, the consumer responds to the challenge with Associate in Nursing AUTHENTICATE_MESSAGE.

The NTLM protocol uses one or each of 2 hashed word values, each of that are keep on the server (or domain controller), and that through a scarcity of seasoning area unit word equivalent, that means that if you grab the hash price from the server, you’ll evidence while not knowing the particular word. the 2 area unit the lm Hash (a DES-based operate applied to the primary fourteen chars of the word born-again to the standard eight bit laptop charset for the language), and also the nt Hash (MD4 of the insufficient endian UTF-16 Unicode password). each hash values area unit sixteen bytes (128 bits) every.

The NTLM protocol additionally uses one among 2 a method functions, looking on the NTLM version. National Trust LanMan and NTLM version one use the DES primarily based LanMan a method operate (LMOWF), whereas National TrustLMv2 uses the NT MD4 primarily based a method operate (NTOWF).

Weaknesses of LM hashes include:

A. Passwords are converted to uppercase before hashing.

B. In older Windows systems, LM hashes were transmitted over the network, sometimes in plaintext (or easily intercepted).

D. Passwords are split into two 7-character chunks, which are hashed independently, reducing entropy.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware and Password Threats

Module 4: Windows Enumeration

Incorrect Option:

C: LM uses DES encryption with 56-bit keys (not 32-bit).

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.

GINA stands for Graphical Identification and Authentication. It is a Windows component (a DLL) that provides the user interface for logging into a Windows system.

Located in msgina.dll (in legacy Windows)

Handles the Ctrl+Alt+Del screen

Collects credentials (username/password) and passes them to the Local Security Authority (LSA)

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 4: Windows Authentication Internals

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“The Graphical Identification and Authentication (GINA) is a DLL that implements the authentication UI for Windows systems. Malicious actors can create custom GINA DLLs to capture login credentials.”

TCP port 48101 uses the Transmission management Protocol. transmission control protocol is one in all the most protocols in TCP/IP networks. transmission control protocol could be a connection-oriented protocol, it needs acknowledgement to line up end-to-end communications. only a association is about up user’s knowledge may be sent bi-directionally over the association.

Attention! transmission control protocol guarantees delivery of knowledge packets on port 48101 within the same order during which they were sent. bonded communication over transmission control protocol port 48101 is that the main distinction between transmission control protocol and UDP. UDP port 48101 wouldn’t have bonded communication as transmission control protocol.

UDP on port 48101 provides Associate in Nursing unreliable service and datagrams might arrive duplicated, out of order, or missing unexpectedly. UDP on port 48101 thinks that error checking and correction isn’t necessary or performed within the application, avoiding the overhead of such process at the network interface level.

UDP (User Datagram Protocol) could be a borderline message-oriented Transport Layer protocol (protocol is documented in IETF RFC 768).

Application examples that always use UDP: vocalisation IP (VoIP), streaming media and period multiplayer games. several internet applications use UDP, e.g. the name System (DNS), the Routing info Protocol (RIP), the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), the straightforward Network Management Protocol (SNMP).

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.

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.

CEH v13 explains that fingerprinting is a core reconnaissance technique used to identify software versions, server types, and configurations by analyzing how systems respond to crafted or abnormal input. When testers send malformed HTTP verbs, unusual headers, or atypical URI structures, the server’s specific response codes, banners, and error messages reveal distinctive behavioral patterns. These patterns allow tools like httprint, Nmap NSE scripts, and custom probes to match the responses to known server profiles. This technique is part of active reconnaissance, enabling attackers to determine vulnerabilities associated with specific versions. Phishing (Option B) is unrelated to protocol analysis. Session fixation (Option C) manipulates session identifiers, not HTTP response patterns. Persistent XSS (Option D) relies on web application vulnerabilities, not server fingerprinting. Thus, the tester is performing HTTP-based server fingerprinting.

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.

The description in the scenario clearly points to Docker. Docker is an open-source platform that automates the deployment, scaling, and management of applications inside containers. It allows:

Isolation of applications from the underlying system

Communication through well-defined APIs and networking interfaces

Rapid packaging and shipping of applications in a containerized format

Docker uses OS-level virtualization and is ideal for Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) environments.

Incorrect Options:

A. Virtual machines virtualize entire operating systems and are heavier in resource use.

B. Serverless computing abstracts the infrastructure entirely but is not about containerization.

D. Zero Trust is a security architecture, not a development or packaging platform.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 19: Cloud Computing

Section: “Containerization and Docker”

Subsection: “Security Benefits of Containers”

=

A brute force attack is a method of trying different combinations of passwords or keys to gain access to a system or service. It is not a reliable way of detecting a honeypot, as it may trigger an alert or response from the target. Moreover, a brute force attack does not provide any information about the system’s characteristics or behavior that could indicate a honeypot. A honeypot is a decoy system that is designed to attract and trap attackers, while providing security teams with valuable intelligence and insights. Therefore, an ethical hacker needs to use more subtle and stealthy techniques to detect and avoid honeypots.

The other options are valid techniques for detecting a honeypot. Probing system services and observing the three-way handshake can reveal anomalies or inconsistencies in the system’s responses, such as abnormal banners, ports, or protocols. Using honeypot detection tools like Send-Safe Honeypot Hunter can scan the target network and identify potential honeypots based on various criteria, such as IP address, domain name, or open ports. Analyzing the MAC address can detect instances running on VMware, which is a common platform for deploying honeypots. A honeypot running on VMware will have a MAC address that starts with 00:0C:29, 00:50:56, or 00:05:69. References:

What is a Honeypot? Types, Benefits, Risks and Best Practices

Using Honeypots for Network Intrusion Detection

Detecting Honeypot Access With Varonis

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.

Once the base DN is identified through LDAP namingContexts, CEH teaches that the next step in enumeration is to query the directory tree using this DN. This allows retrieval of users, groups, computers, and other AD objects. LDAP-based enumeration requires valid search filters rooted in the base DN.

A vulnerability assessment is a systematic review of security weaknesses in an information system. It evaluates if the system is susceptible to any known vulnerabilities, assigns severity levels to those vulnerabilities, and recommends remediation or mitigation, if and whenever needed1. A vulnerability assessment can be performed using various tools and techniques, depending on the scope and objectives of the assessment.

Considering the potential vulnerability sources, the best initial approach to vulnerability assessment is to check for hardware and software misconfigurations to identify any possible loopholes. Hardware and software misconfigurations are common sources of vulnerabilities that can expose the system to unauthorized access, data breaches, or service disruptions. Hardware and software misconfigurations can include:

Insecure default settings, such as weak passwords, open ports, unnecessary services, or verbose error messages.

Improper access control policies, such as granting excessive privileges, allowing anonymous access, or failing to revoke access for terminated users.

Lack of encryption or authentication mechanisms, such as using plain text protocols, storing sensitive data in clear text, or transmitting data without verifying the identity of the sender or receiver.

Outdated or incompatible software versions, such as using unsupported or deprecated software, failing to apply security patches, or having software conflicts or dependencies.

Checking for hardware and software misconfigurations can help identify any possible loopholes that could be exploited by attackers to compromise the system or the data. Checking for hardware and software misconfigurations can be done using various tools, such as:

Configuration management tools, such as Ansible, Puppet, or Chef, that can automate the deployment and maintenance of consistent and secure configurations across the system.

Configuration auditing tools, such as Nipper, Lynis, or OpenSCAP, that can scan the system for deviations from the desired or expected configurations and report any issues or vulnerabilities.

Configuration testing tools, such as Inspec, Serverspec, or Testinfra, that can verify the system’s compliance with the specified configuration rules and standards.

Therefore, checking for hardware and software misconfigurations is the best initial approach to vulnerability assessment, as it can help identify and eliminate any possible loopholes that could pose a security risk to the system or the data.

An untethered jailbreak is one that allows a telephone to finish a boot cycle when being pwned with none interruption to jailbreak-oriented practicality.

Untethered jailbreaks area unit the foremost sought-after of all, however they’re additionally the foremost difficult to attain due to the powerful exploits and organic process talent they need. associate unbound jailbreak is sent over a physical USB cable association to a laptop or directly on the device itself by approach of associate application-based exploit, like a web site in campaign.

Upon running associate unbound jailbreak, you’ll be able to flip your pwned telephone off and on once more while not running the jailbreak tool once more. all of your jailbreak tweaks and apps would then continue in operation with none user intervention necessary.

It’s been an extended time since IOS has gotten the unbound jailbreak treatment. the foremost recent example was the computer-based Pangu break, that supported most handsets that ran IOS nine.1. We’ve additionally witnessed associate unbound jailbreak within the kind of JailbreakMe, that allowed users to pwn their handsets directly from the mobile campaign applications programme while not a laptop.

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.

Asymmetric encryption, as defined in CEH v13 Cryptography, uses a public-private key pair, solving the key distribution problem inherent in symmetric encryption.

Public keys can be freely shared, enabling secure communication initiation without prior shared secrets. Disk encryption and hashes do not address key exchange.

Therefore, Option D is correct.

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.

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)