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

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.

Footprinting is the first phase of ethical hacking and information gathering. It involves collecting as much information as possible about a target system or organization from public sources (such as websites, social media, WHOIS databases, job postings, etc.) before launching an attack or vulnerability scan.

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

“Footprinting is the process of gathering information about a target system to find ways to intrude into the system.”

❌ Incorrect options:

A. Scanning is the next phase, involving probing the network.

C. Enumeration extracts detailed information from services like SNMP, NetBIOS, etc.

D. System Hacking is the actual exploitation phase.

A powerful and often the most effective cryptanalysis method in which the attack is directed at the most vulnerable link in the cryptosystem - the person. In this attack, the cryptanalyst uses blackmail, threats, torture, extortion, bribery, etc. This method's main advantage is the decryption time's fundamental independence from the volume of secret information, the length of the key, and the cipher's mathematical strength.

The method can reduce the time to guess a password, for example, for AES, to an acceptable level; however, it requires special authorization from the relevant regulatory authorities. Therefore, it is outside the scope of this course and is not considered in its practical part.

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.”

=

In CEH v13 Module 09: Social Engineering, scareware is defined as a malicious tactic that uses fear, panic, or urgency to trick users into performing harmful actions such as downloading fake software or clicking malicious links.

Common Scareware Example:

A pop-up warns the user: “Your system is infected! Install this antivirus now!”

Victim downloads malware disguised as a solution.

Often used to deliver spyware, ransomware, or trojans.

Option Review:

A. Free cruise: Classic example of baiting, not scareware.

B. Account locked: Closer to phishing or credential harvesting.

C. Delivery delay: Another phishing variation.

D. Pop-up about infection: True scareware tactic.

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.

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.

Adversaries could decide to build an possible or file difficult to find or analyze by encrypting, encoding, or otherwise obfuscating its contents on the system or in transit. this is often common behavior which will be used across totally different platforms and therefore the network to evade defenses.

Payloads may be compressed, archived, or encrypted so as to avoid detection. These payloads may be used throughout Initial Access or later to mitigate detection. typically a user’s action could also be needed to open and Deobfuscate/Decode Files or info for User Execution. The user can also be needed to input a parole to open a parole protected compressed/encrypted file that was provided by the mortal. Adversaries can also used compressed or archived scripts, like JavaScript.

Portions of files can even be encoded to cover the plain-text strings that will otherwise facilitate defenders with discovery. Payloads can also be split into separate, ostensibly benign files that solely reveal malicious practicality once reassembled.

Adversaries can also modify commands dead from payloads or directly via a Command and Scripting Interpreter. surroundings variables, aliases, characters, and different platform/language specific linguistics may be wont to evade signature based mostly detections and application management mechanisms.

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

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.

Cloud-based antivirus relies on data collected from endpoint devices and sends that data to cloud servers for real-time malware analysis. This allows rapid updates and detection of new threats without waiting for local signature updates.

???? Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide, Module 20: Cryptography and Malware

“Cloud-based detection systems analyze suspicious files and behaviors in the provider’s environment, enabling faster response and reduced endpoint resource usage.”

❌ Incorrect options:

A. Behavioral-based detection monitors live activity locally.

B. Heuristic-based detection uses rules or behavior patterns locally.

C. Honeypots are decoys for detecting attackers, not antivirus methods.

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

The residual risk is the risk or danger of an action or an event, a method or a (technical) process that, although being abreast with science, still conceives these dangers, even if all theoretically possible safety measures would be applied (scientifically conceivable measures); in other words, the amount of risk left over after natural or inherent risks have been reduced by risk controls.

· Residual risk = (Inherent risk) – (impact of risk controls)

This scenario describes Differential Cryptanalysis, a powerful cryptanalytic technique covered in CEH v13 Cryptography. Differential cryptanalysis focuses on analyzing how small changes in plaintext input affect the resulting ciphertext output, with the goal of uncovering patterns related to the secret encryption key.

CEH v13 explains that symmetric algorithms rely on complex transformations—such as substitution and permutation—to obscure relationships between plaintext and ciphertext. However, in some algorithms, predictable differences may propagate through encryption rounds in a way that reveals statistical biases. By carefully selecting pairs of plaintext inputs with controlled differences and comparing the resulting ciphertexts, attackers can infer information about intermediate states and eventually the encryption key.

This method does not attempt every possible key (brute force), nor does it rely on execution timing or system performance metrics (timing attacks). It also differs from chosen-ciphertext attacks, which involve submitting chosen ciphertexts for decryption rather than observing encryption behavior.

Differential cryptanalysis was instrumental in breaking early block ciphers and is a key reason why modern algorithms like AES are designed with resistance to differential attacks. CEH v13 emphasizes that understanding this attack is critical for evaluating the strength of symmetric encryption algorithms and their internal structure.

Therefore, Option A accurately describes the technique being employed.

Syhunt Hybrid combines comprehensive static and dynamic security scans to detect vulnerabilities like XSS, File Inclusion, SQL Injection, Command Execution and many more, including inferential, in-band and out-of-band attacks through Hybrid-Augmented Analysis (HAST). With Syhunt's unique gray box/hybrid scanning capability the information acquired during source code scans is automatically used to create and enhance dynamic scans. All entry points are covered generating detailed information about the security level of your web applications. Available for on-premises deployment for businesses using Windows and Linux 64-bit.

Web Server Security Tools - Web Application Security Scanners The Syhunt Hybrid scanner automates web application security testing and guards the organization’s web infrastructure against web application security threats. Syhunt Dynamic crawls websites and detects XSS, directory transversal problems, fault injection, SQL injection, attempts to execute commands, and several other attacks. (P.1713/1697)

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Footprinting and Reconnaissance module defines Google Hacking, also known as Google Dorking, as the use of advanced search operators to uncover sensitive information unintentionally exposed on the public internet. This technique remains passive, making it ideal during early reconnaissance.

Google Hacking can reveal:

Exposed configuration files

Backup files (.bak, .old, .zip)

Error messages and stack traces

Source code fragments and scripting errors

These findings often indicate coding weaknesses or insecure configurations within a web application. CEH explicitly highlights Google Dorking as an effective way to identify web application weaknesses without scanning or exploiting the target directly.

Option C is correct because Google Hacking is commonly used to identify coding and configuration weaknesses exposed through indexed files.

Option A may be possible indirectly but is not the primary justification.

Option B is incorrect because Google does not index the Deep Web.

Option D involves internal network discovery, which Google Hacking cannot directly achieve.

CEH emphasizes Google Hacking as a powerful passive reconnaissance technique for discovering exposed vulnerabilities.

The most effective evasion technique to bypass the IDS signature detection while performing a SQL Injection attack is to leverage string concatenation to break identifiable keywords. This technique involves splitting SQL keywords or operators into smaller parts and joining them with string concatenation operators, such as ‘+’ or ‘||’. This way, the SQL query can still be executed by the database engine, but the IDS cannot recognize the keywords or operators as malicious, as they are hidden within strings. For example, the hacker could replace the keyword ‘OR’ with ‘O’||‘R’ or ‘O’+‘R’ in the SQL query, and the IDS would not be able to match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern12.

The other options are not as effective as option D for the following reasons:

A. Implement case variation by altering the case of SQL statements: This option is not effective because most SQL engines and IDS systems are case-insensitive, meaning that they treat SQL keywords and operators the same regardless of their case. Therefore, altering the case of SQL statements would not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern3.

B. Employ IP fragmentation to obscure the attack payload: This option is not applicable because IP fragmentation is a network-level technique that splits IP packets into smaller fragments to fit the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the network. IP fragmentation does not affect the content or structure of the SQL query, and it does not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to reassemble the fragments and match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern4.

C. Use Hex encoding to represent the SQL query string: This option is not feasible because Hex encoding is a method of representing binary data in hexadecimal format, such as ‘0x41’ for ‘A’. Hex encoding does not work for SQL queries, as the SQL engine would not be able to interpret the hexadecimal values as valid SQL syntax. Moreover, Hex encoding would not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to decode the hexadecimal values and match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern.

Ransomware encrypts user data and extorts payment for restoration. CEH covers ransomware as a major threat in system hacking, highlighting encryption-based extortion as its defining behavior.

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

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

A web application firewall (WAF) is a specific form of application firewall that filters, monitors, and blocks HTTP traffic to and from a web service. By inspecting HTTP traffic, it can prevent attacks exploiting a web application's known vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), file inclusion, and improper system configuration.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The “weakest link” in cybersecurity is almost always the human element. Even with cutting-edge technology and airtight configurations, untrained or careless users can fall for phishing attacks, use weak passwords, or mishandle sensitive data — giving hackers a path into the system.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 7: Social Engineering

Topic: Human Element in Security Breaches