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

The described bypass is most consistent with using an in-line comment technique. Many simplistic SQL injection filters look for specific “blocked” keywords such as SELECT, UNION, OR, or DROP as contiguous strings. If the tester breaks a keyword apart by inserting tokens the database will ignore—most commonly comment delimiters—the filter may fail to match the forbidden keyword, while the SQL parser still reconstructs the intended meaning. For example, inserting comment markers inside a keyword can cause the application-layer filter to miss the pattern, yet the database can still process the statement depending on the DBMS and parsing rules. This is why comment-based obfuscation is a common SQLi evasion approach against weak signature filters.

The scenario’s wording “broken apart with unexpected symbols” maps well to comment markers such as /**/ (or other DBMS-specific comment forms). These characters look “unexpected” to a naïve filter, but to the SQL engine they are treated as comments/whitespace and effectively ignored during parsing, allowing the attacker’s intended keyword to be interpreted correctly.

Why the other options are less aligned:

String concatenation (A) is an obfuscation approach where attackers build keywords/strings using concatenation operators or functions (DBMS-specific). The scenario emphasizes splitting keywords with symbols that the DB interprets correctly as separators/ignored content, which more directly matches comment insertion.

Hex encoding (B) encodes parts of a payload (strings, sometimes function names) in hexadecimal form. That is a different technique than splitting keywords with inserted symbols.

Null byte (D) is historically used to terminate strings in certain contexts (more common in older file/path handling bugs) and is not the primary technique for bypassing keyword filters in modern SQL parsing.

Therefore, the SQL injection evasion technique is C. In-line Comment.

Tailgating, as defined in CEH v13 Social Engineering, is a physical social engineering attack where an unauthorized individual gains access by following an authorized person into a restricted area.

The attacker exploits human courtesy rather than technical vulnerabilities. Options B, C, and D describe phishing, pretexting, and baiting respectively.

Thus, option A is the correct representation of tailgating.

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.

The correct answer is C. Encrypt stored data with quantum-resistant algorithms.

The question asks for a mitigation that directly addresses cryptographic resilience for stored data. If future quantum computers can break currently deployed public-key schemes, then the appropriate defense is to migrate protected data and key-establishment designs toward post-quantum or quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms.

CEH cryptography material explains that cryptographic attacks attempt to recover encryption keys and that weak encryption algorithms may not be resistant enough against cryptographic attacks . In this scenario, the risk is not network exposure or poor coding practice; it is the future strength of the cryptographic algorithm itself.

Option A. Use quantum-specific firewalls is incorrect because firewalls do not protect already encrypted archives from cryptanalytic key recovery.

Option B. Break data into fragments and distribute it across multiple locations may reduce concentration risk, but it does not solve the weakness of an encryption algorithm vulnerable to quantum cryptanalysis.

Option D. Include quantum-resistance checks in SDLC and code review processes is useful as a governance practice, but it does not directly protect the stored archives unless the cryptography is actually changed.

Option C. Encrypt stored data with quantum-resistant algorithms is correct because it directly mitigates the future decryption risk.

Therefore, the best answer is C. Encrypt stored data with quantum-resistant algorithms.

Tautology-based SQL injection tests, such as using ' OR ' 1 ' = ' 1, are safe and effective methods to verify whether SQL queries are being manipulated by user input. CEH emphasizes avoiding destructive queries and using logical expressions that return all rows if injection is successful.

CEH categorizes spear phishing as a highly targeted, research-driven social engineering technique that tailors the message to the victim’s role, responsibilities, and current organizational activities. When attackers reference specific internal projects, personnel names, vendor relationships, or operational details, the message appears authentic and bypasses normal suspicion. Executives are especially vulnerable because they routinely receive sensitive operational updates and work closely with vendors and partners, making them prime targets for tailored deception. CEH stresses that spear phishing is significantly more effective than generic phishing because personalization increases trust. Social media-based attempts and mass phishing lack specificity and raise suspicion. Impersonating the CEO over the phone is riskier and more detectable due to real-time human interaction. A targeted spear-phishing email referencing internal projects best aligns with CEH-described advanced social engineering strategy.

The CEH Cloud Security module highlights identity and access management (IAM) failures as a major source of cloud breaches. Ensuring timely de-provisioning of user accounts when employees leave is a core security control.

Option C is correct.

Options A and B detect issues but don’t prevent access persistence.

Option D is unrelated to access control.

CEH stresses joiner–mover–leaver (JML) processes.

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 correct answer is A. Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA).

The scenario describes an authenticated user changing an object identifier in an API request and gaining access to another client’s dashboard data. The user remains authenticated, but the application fails to verify whether that user is authorized to access the specific object referenced by the identifier.

This is the API security equivalent of an insecure direct object reference. CEH-aligned web application material explains that applications often use objects or IDs to distinguish user records and that if a user can change an identifier, such as id=1 to id=2, and access another user’s data, the flaw is an insecure direct object reference . In OWASP API Security terminology, this is classified as Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA).

Option B. Broken Object Property Level Authorization is incorrect because that involves unauthorized access to specific object properties or fields, not the entire object identified by an ID.

Option C. Broken Function Level Authorization is incorrect because the user is not accessing an unauthorized function or administrative endpoint; they are accessing another object through the same function.

Option D. Broken Authentication is incorrect because the session remains valid and authentication is not bypassed. The failure is authorization at the object level.

Therefore, the best answer is A. Broken Object Level Authorization (BOLA).

The best answer is D. Insecure routing protocols because the scenario describes legacy neighbor-to-neighbor device communications that lack encryption and integrity validation, allowing operational routing data to be exchanged without verification. In CEH-aligned network hacking concepts, this is a classic weakness of older or improperly secured routing protocols (and related network control-plane exchanges) where routers trust updates from neighbors and do not cryptographically validate the authenticity and integrity of routing information.

When routing updates are accepted without strong verification, an attacker who can position themselves on the same segment (or spoof a trusted neighbor) may inject or manipulate routing information. This can enable attacks such as route injection, route poisoning, man-in-the-middle (MITM) traffic redirection, blackholing traffic, or causing instability/denial of service by continuously advertising bad routes. The mention of “neighboring systems” and “operational data” strongly maps to routing adjacencies where devices exchange reachability and topology information. The absence of integrity checks makes it feasible to alter routing messages in transit or forge them, and the absence of encryption can expose routing details that further assists reconnaissance and targeted manipulation.

Why the other options are less accurate:

Firewall vulnerabilities relate to filtering and policy enforcement, but the core issue here is the trust model and protection of routing/control messages, not firewall rule flaws.

Lack of password protection is too generic and typically refers to weak/no credentials on management access, not unauthenticated routing exchanges.

Lack of authentication is conceptually related, but the question asks for the type of vulnerability most clearly present given “legacy communication mechanisms” between neighbors carrying operational data—this is most specifically categorized in CEH terms as insecure routing protocols (i.e., routing updates lacking authentication/integrity and sometimes encryption).

In practice, organizations mitigate this by enabling routing protocol authentication (where supported), using cryptographic integrity protections, restricting routing adjacencies, and segmenting or filtering routing/control-plane traffic to trusted peers only.

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

Passive reconnaissance is emphasized throughout CEH as an essential method for gathering intelligence without alerting monitoring systems. When the tester cannot interact with the live site, they must rely entirely on third-party archives or cached content stored by search engines or internet archival services. Google’s cache function provides previously stored versions of web pages exactly for this purpose. CEH explains that attackers frequently use cached content to retrieve outdated login portals, administrative pages, exposed directories, or other sensitive elements that may no longer appear on the live web server. Unlike operators such as intext or intitle, which query live indexed metadata, the cache operator retrieves historical snapshots without accessing the target website. The link operator identifies backlinks but does not provide historical page content. Only the cache operator directly supports viewing previous versions of pages passively, aligning perfectly with the requirement to avoid detection while gathering intelligence on legacy web content.

The correct answer is C. Applying Root Guard on designated interfaces.

The scenario describes an unauthorized or unintended device sending superior spanning-tree information that influences root bridge selection. Root Guard is specifically designed to prevent a port from accepting superior BPDUs that could cause an unauthorized switch to become the root bridge or alter the intended Layer 2 topology.

A related switching reference states that Root Guard on aggregation switch downlinks ensures that access switches cannot send superior BPDUs to challenge the aggregation switch’s root status, thereby maintaining predictable STP root placement .

Option A. Loop Guard is incorrect because Loop Guard protects against missing BPDUs and loop conditions, not unauthorized superior BPDUs attempting to influence root election.

Option B. BPDU Guard is useful on PortFast/edge ports because it disables a port when any BPDU is received. However, the question specifically focuses on preserving root selection and preventing superior bridge-priority information from changing the STP hierarchy, which is the purpose of Root Guard.

Option D. UDLD is incorrect because UDLD detects unidirectional link failures, not malicious or unintended STP root manipulation.

Therefore, the best answer is C. Applying Root Guard on designated interfaces.

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

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

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

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

The described behavior strongly matches HTTP Response Splitting. This vulnerability occurs when an application includes unsanitized user input in HTTP response headers. By injecting carriage return and line feed characters (CRLF), an attacker can “split” the server’s response into multiple parts—causing additional headers to appear or injecting unintended body content. The scenario explicitly says Raj’s payloads cause “additional headers to appear” and “inject unintended content into the output,” which is the classic outcome of response splitting.

Why this matters: response splitting can enable attacks such as web cache poisoning, cookie manipulation, redirection, and cross-site scripting-like impacts through header/body injection. For example, if an attacker can inject a Set-Cookie header, they may set or overwrite cookies in the victim’s browser. If they can inject a Location header, they may force redirects. If they inject content into the body, they may deliver malicious scripts or alter page behavior—especially when combined with caching intermediaries. The vulnerability typically arises in features that reflect user input into headers such as Location, Set-Cookie, Content-Disposition, or custom headers.

The other options do not match the symptoms:

XML Poisoning (B) and XXE (C) relate to XML parsing and entity resolution; they do not directly cause added HTTP headers in responses.

SSRF (D) involves forcing the server to make outbound requests to internal/external resources; it may expose data but does not primarily manifest as injected response headers and altered response structure.

Therefore, Raj is most likely exploiting A. HTTP Response Splitting.