312-50v13 Exam Dumps - ECCouncil CEH v13 Questions and Answers

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

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

Boolean-based queries

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

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

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 10: Web Application Hacking → SQL Injection Types

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.

Operational Threat Intelligence provides insights into specific attacker methodologies, motivations, and campaigns. It involves gathering contextual information from real-world attacks, open-source intelligence (OSINT), social media, dark web forums, chat rooms, and human intelligence (HUMINT).

As per CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Operational intelligence is primarily used by security teams to anticipate specific incoming attacks.

It helps provide actionable information such as:

Who is attacking?

Why are they attacking?

What methods are they using?

What infrastructure is involved?

Incorrect Options:

A. Strategic Threat Intelligence is high-level, focusing on long-term trends and business risks.

B. Tactical Threat Intelligence is focused on TTPs (Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures) of known threats, primarily for defenders and analysts.

D. Technical Threat Intelligence includes IoCs like IPs, hashes, and URLs, often short-lived and used for detection systems.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Section: "Types of Threat Intelligence"

Table: “Strategic vs Tactical vs Operational vs Technical Intelligence”

=

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.

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

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.

DHCP starvation is a network-level attack in which an attacker sends a massive number of DHCPDISCOVER requests, each appearing to originate from a different MAC address. CEH courseware explains that DHCP servers assign IP leases based on unique MAC addresses, and when the lease pool is exhausted, legitimate clients are unable to obtain valid IP configurations. This disrupts network connectivity and can serve as a precursor to deploying a rogue DHCP server, enabling further attacks such as traffic redirection or credential interception. DHCP starvation is different from ARP spoofing, which manipulates MAC–IP mappings, or DNS poisoning, which corrupts domain resolution. Rogue DHCP relay attacks involve forwarding DHCP packets to unauthorized servers, not depleting leases. The scenario described—rapid MAC address spoofing and exhaustion of DHCP leases—matches the precise definition of DHCP starvation as documented in CEH materials.

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.

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

Option C precisely matches CEH’s definition.

Option A is pretexting.

Option B is baiting.

Option D is phishing.

CEH stresses physical security awareness as critical as cyber defenses.

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, under the Nmap Host Discovery Techniques, TCP SYN ping scan is explained as one of the methods used to determine whether a host is online by sending SYN packets to specified TCP ports.

When using Nmap:

-PS specifies a TCP SYN ping scan. It sends SYN packets to a given port (by default port 80, unless specified) to check whether a host is up and whether the port is open.

The response type to this SYN packet determines the host status:

If a SYN/ACK is received, it indicates the port is open, and the host is up.

If RST is received, the port is closed, but the host is still considered online.

If no response or ICMP unreachable is received, the host may be down or filtered.

Clarification of options:

A. -pp: This is not a valid Nmap option.

B. -PO: This sends IP Protocol Ping, used less frequently and not the same as SYN ping.

C. -PS: Correct. Performs a TCP SYN Ping Scan.

D. -PA: Sends TCP ACK Ping, used to determine firewall presence but not the same as SYN scan.

Reference from CEH v13 Study Guide and Course Material:

CEH v13 Official Module 03 – Scanning Networks, Slide: Nmap Host Discovery Techniques

EC-Council iLabs - Scanning Networks Practical Lab Guide: Section on nmap -sn -PS

Nmap Official Documentation (also referenced in CEH): https://nmap.org/book/man-host-discovery.html

The longer an adversary has this level of access, the greater the impact. Defenders must detect this stage as quickly as possible and deploy tools which can enable them to gather forensic evidence. One example would come with network packet captures, for damage assessment. Only now, after progressing through the primary six phases, can intruders take actions to realize their original objectives. Typically, the target of knowledge exfiltration involves collecting, encrypting and extracting information from the victim(s) environment; violations of knowledge integrity or availability are potential objectives also . Alternatively, and most ordinarily , the intruder may only desire access to the initial victim box to be used as a hop point to compromise additional systems and move laterally inside the network. Once this stage is identified within an environment, the implementation of prepared reaction plans must be initiated. At a minimum, the plan should include a comprehensive communication plan, detailed evidence must be elevated to the very best ranking official or board , the deployment of end-point security tools to dam data loss and preparation for briefing a CIRT Team. Having these resources well established beforehand may be a “MUST” in today’s quickly evolving landscape of cybersecurity threats

CEH documentation explains that WPA-TKIP was a transitional security protocol and does not use AES encryption, relying instead on RC4-based mechanisms.

The lack of AES-based encryption makes WPA-TKIP vulnerable to injection and replay attacks.

Option C is correct.

Options A applies to WEP.

Option B affects authentication, not TKIP weakness.

Option D is not the primary TKIP flaw.

CEH recommends WPA2/WPA3 with AES.

The idle scan could be a communications protocol port scan technique that consists of causing spoofed packets to a pc to seek out out what services square measure obtainable. this can be accomplished by impersonating another pc whose network traffic is extremely slow or nonexistent (that is, not transmission or receiving information). this might be associate idle pc, known as a “zombie”.

This action are often done through common code network utilities like nmap and hping. The attack involves causing solid packets to a particular machine target in an attempt to seek out distinct characteristics of another zombie machine. The attack is refined as a result of there’s no interaction between the offender pc and also the target: the offender interacts solely with the “zombie” pc.

This exploit functions with 2 functions, as a port scanner and a clerk of sure informatics relationships between machines. The target system interacts with the “zombie” pc and distinction in behavior are often discovered mistreatment totally different|completely different “zombies” with proof of various privileges granted by the target to different computers.

The overall intention behind the idle scan is to “check the port standing whereas remaining utterly invisible to the targeted host.”

The first step in execution associate idle scan is to seek out associate applicable zombie. It must assign informatics ID packets incrementally on a worldwide (rather than per-host it communicates with) basis. It ought to be idle (hence the scan name), as extraneous traffic can raise its informatics ID sequence, confusing the scan logic. The lower the latency between the offender and also the zombie, and between the zombie and also the target, the quicker the scan can proceed.

Note that once a port is open, IPIDs increment by a pair of. Following is that the sequence:

offender to focus on -> SYN, target to zombie ->SYN/ACK, Zombie to focus on -> RST (IPID increment by 1)

currently offender tries to probe zombie for result. offender to Zombie ->SYN/ACK, Zombie to offender -> RST (IPID increment by 1)

So, during this method IPID increments by a pair of finally.

When associate idle scan is tried, tools (for example nmap) tests the projected zombie and reports any issues with it. If one does not work, attempt another. Enough net hosts square measure vulnerable that zombie candidates are not exhausting to seek out. a standard approach is to easily execute a ping sweep of some network. selecting a network close to your supply address, or close to the target, produces higher results. you’ll be able to attempt associate idle scan mistreatment every obtainable host from the ping sweep results till you discover one that works. As usual, it’s best to raise permission before mistreatment someone’s machines for surprising functions like idle scanning.

Simple network devices typically create nice zombies as a result of {they square measure|they’re} normally each underused (idle) and designed with straightforward network stacks that are susceptible to informatics ID traffic detection.

While distinguishing an acceptable zombie takes some initial work, you’ll be able to keep re-using the nice ones. as an alternative, there are some analysis on utilizing unplanned public internet services as zombie hosts to perform similar idle scans. leverage the approach a number of these services perform departing connections upon user submissions will function some quite poor’s man idle scanning.

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 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

In CEH v13, IDS effectiveness is closely tied to proper signature tuning and sensitivity thresholds. When IDS alerts are triggered by legitimate user behavior, the most common cause is overly sensitive configuration, resulting in false positives.

False positives occur when normal traffic patterns match intrusion signatures. CEH v13 emphasizes that IDS systems must be calibrated to the organization’s baseline traffic profile. Without tuning, IDS logs become noisy and reduce analyst effectiveness.

Firewall issues (Option A) and outdated IDS signatures (Option B) can cause missed detections, not excessive alerts. Users unintentionally triggering protocols (Option D) is not a root cause but a symptom of misconfiguration.

Thus, excessive IDS sensitivity is the correct explanation.