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

CEH v13 discusses various credential extraction and authentication abuse techniques, including approaches that avoid LSASS memory due to modern protections like Credential Guard. The Internal Monologue technique is a specialized credential-harvesting approach that leverages the Windows SSPI authentication stack to coerce the local system into generating NetNTLM challenge-response hashes without requiring direct access to LSASS. This allows attackers to obtain legitimate NTLM responses entirely within the user’s security context. These captured responses can then be cracked offline using tools such as Hashcat. Unlike replay attacks (Option B), Internal Monologue is not about reusing captured traffic. Hash injection (Option C) requires possession of NT hashes and modifies authentication tokens, which does not occur here. Pass-the-ticket (Option D) targets Kerberos, not NTLM. Therefore, the correct technique is the Internal Monologue attack.

This scenario precisely matches polymorphic malware, a type of advanced malware described in CEH v13 Malware Threats. Polymorphic malware dynamically alters its code, encryption, or signature each time it propagates, allowing it to evade traditional signature-based antivirus detection.

Additionally, the malware’s ability to remain dormant until triggered indicates logic-based activation, which is common in advanced threats designed to avoid sandbox detection.

CEH v13 emphasizes that polymorphic malware cannot be reliably detected using static signatures. Instead, organizations must rely on behavior-based detection, heuristic analysis, and advanced threat protection systems capable of identifying suspicious runtime behavior.

Options A, C, and D do not match the described behavior. Adware focuses on advertising. Worms self-propagate aggressively. Rootkits focus on stealth and persistence, not code mutation.

Therefore, Option B is the correct answer.

Out-of-band SQL injection occurs when an attacker is unable to use an equivalent channel to launch the attack and gather results. … Out-of-band SQLi techniques would believe the database server’s ability to form DNS or HTTP requests to deliver data to an attacker. Out-of-band SQL injection is not very common, mostly because it depends on features being enabled on the database server being used by the web application. Out-of-band SQL injection occurs when an attacker is unable to use the same channel to launch the attack and gather results.

Out-of-band techniques, offer an attacker an alternative to inferential time-based techniques, especially if the server responses are not very stable (making an inferential time-based attack unreliable).

Out-of-band SQLi techniques would rely on the database server’s ability to make DNS or HTTP requests to deliver data to an attacker. Such is the case with Microsoft SQL Server’s xp_dirtree command, which can be used to make DNS requests to a server an attacker controls; as well as Oracle Database’s UTL_HTTP package, which can be used to send HTTP requests from SQL and PL/SQL to a server an attacker controls.

Email spoofing is the fabrication of an email header in the hopes of duping the recipient into thinking the email originated from someone or somewhere other than the intended source. Because core email protocols do not have a built-in method of authentication, it is common for spam and phishing emails to use said spoofing to trick the recipient into trusting the origin of the message.

The ultimate goal of email spoofing is to get recipients to open, and possibly even respond to, a solicitation. Although the spoofed messages are usually just a nuisance requiring little action besides removal, the more malicious varieties can cause significant problems and sometimes pose a real security threat.

======

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Internet Registries (RIRs):

ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers)

AFRINIC (African Network Information Center)

APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Center)

RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre)

LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Network Information Center)

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

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

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

CEH courseware describes rootkits as specialized malware designed to conceal their presence while providing persistent, unauthorized access to system-level functions. Rootkits typically modify low-level components of the operating system—such as kernel modules, drivers, or system processes—to hide files, processes, registry keys, and network connections. Their primary purpose is to grant attackers administrative privileges without triggering alerts, making them extremely stealthy and dangerous. CEH emphasizes that rootkits often accompany other malware to maintain long-term control after initial compromise. In contrast, viruses replicate by attaching to files, keyloggers record keystrokes but do not hide system-level access, and ransomware encrypts data rather than conceals operations. The defining characteristics in this scenario—cloaking activity, providing admin-level control, persisting undetected—are directly aligned with rootkit behavior as described in CEH training material.

CEH v13 follows the Incident Response Lifecycle, which prioritizes identification and analysis before containment, unless there is immediate risk of catastrophic damage. In this scenario, the attacker has escalated privileges, but the organization still needs to understand what actions are being taken, what systems are affected, and whether lateral movement is occurring.

Option C aligns with CEH v13 best practices. Real-time monitoring and documentation allow analysts to:

Identify attacker techniques and tools

Preserve volatile evidence

Understand scope and impact

Implement targeted containment

Immediately powering down the server (Option B) may destroy volatile forensic evidence and disrupt services unnecessarily. Engaging forensic teams (Option A) is important but premature without initial analysis. Running vulnerability scans (Option D) does not address the active threat.

CEH v13 stresses that informed containment is more effective than reactive shutdowns. Therefore, Option C is correct.

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. 

The CEH IDS/IPS Evasion module describes packet fragmentation as a common evasion technique used to bypass signature-based detection.

Option B is correct.

Other options represent different attack categories.

CEH highlights reassembly normalization as a countermeasure.

According to CEH v13 Module 06: Malware Threats, when analyzing suspicious system behavior or investigating a suspected Trojan infection, a common and effective approach is to:

Monitor system activity and network behavior using tools like netstat, Wireshark, and TCPView.

Trojans often create covert channels or backdoors for remote access, which can be identified through unexpected or unauthorized outgoing connections to remote IP addresses or domains.

Using netstat -an or netstat -ano helps identify open ports and active connections, and checking these against known IPs can indicate whether a Trojan is communicating with a Command and Control (C&C) server.

Analysis of Each Option:

A. Use ExifTool and check for malicious content

Incorrect. ExifTool is primarily used for extracting metadata from files, especially images and documents. It is not effective for analyzing executable malware or system behavior post-execution.

B. You do not check; rather, you immediately restore a previous snapshot of the operating system

Incorrect. While restoring from a snapshot might eventually be required, immediate restoration without diagnosis is not a recommended or forensically sound first step. It also prevents root cause analysis.

C. Upload the file to VirusTotal

Partially correct but not sufficient. While uploading the file to VirusTotal is a good step to confirm if the file is known malware, it does not identify whether the machine is currently infected or actively compromised.

D. Use netstat and check for outgoing connections to strange IP addresses or domains

Correct. This method helps detect if the system is making suspicious external connections that are common in Trojan infections.

Reference from CEH v13 Study Guide and Course Materials:

CEH v13 Official Module 06 – Malware Threats, Section: Types of Malware – Trojans, and System Monitoring Tools

CEH v13 eCourseware Lab Manual: "Detecting Trojan Activity using netstat and TCPView"

CEH Engage Range: Malware Investigation Phase – Trojan Behavior Detection

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.

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 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.

The KRACK (Key Reinstallation Attack) vulnerability is a critical WPA2 flaw covered extensively in CEH v13 Wireless Network Hacking. KRACK exploits weaknesses in the four-way handshake process, allowing attackers to force reinstallation of encryption keys.

This key reinstallation resets nonces and counters, enabling attackers to decrypt, replay, and forge packets, even on encrypted WPA2 networks. CEH v13 highlights that KRACK does not break encryption mathematically but exploits protocol logic flaws.

Hole196 affects GTK misuse, and WPS PIN attacks target authentication, not replay of encrypted traffic. Weak RNG issues are unrelated to WPA2 replay.

Thus, Option B is correct.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Non-repudiation ensures that a sender cannot deny having sent a message. This is typically achieved through digital signatures or logs which verify the origin and integrity of communications.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 10: Cryptography → Security Services

“Non-repudiation prevents entities from denying their actions, such as sending emails or digital transactions.”

The location: operator is the least useful in providing the attacker with sensitive VPN-related information, because it does not directly relate to VPN configuration, credentials, or vulnerabilities. The location: operator finds information for a specific location, such as a city, country, or region. For example, location:paris would return results related to Paris, France. However, this operator does not help the attacker to identify or access VPN servers or clients, unless they are specifically named or indexed by their location, which is unlikely.

The other operators are more useful in providing the attacker with sensitive VPN-related information, because they can help the attacker to find pages or files that contain VPN configuration, credentials, or vulnerabilities. The intitle: operator restricts results to only the pages containing the specified term in the title. For example, intitle:vpn would return pages with VPN in their title, which may include VPN guides, manuals, or tutorials. The inurl: operator restricts the results to only the pages containing the specified word in the URL. For example, inurl:vpn would return pages with VPN in their URL, which may include VPN login portals, configuration files, or directories. The link: operator searches websites or pages that contain links to the specified website or page. For example, link:vpn.com would return pages that link to vpn.com, which may include VPN reviews, comparisons, or recommendations. References:

Google Search Operators: The Complete List (44 Advanced Operators)

Footprinting through search engines

Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance