ECCouncil 312-50v12 - Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv12)

SSL/TLS is a protocol that provides encryption and authentication for data in transit between a client and a server. However, SSL/TLS does not provide any protection against data tampering, which is the alteration, deletion, or insertion of data without authorization or proper validation. Data tampering can compromise the integrity and accuracy of the data, and potentially lead to breaches or fraud. To detect and prevent data tampering, you should implement IPsec in addition to SSL/TLS. IPsec is a protocol that provides encryption, authentication, and integrity for data in transit at the network layer. IPsec uses cryptographic mechanisms, such as digital signatures and hash-based message authentication codes (HMACs), to verify the identity of the sender and the receiver, and to ensure that the data has not been modified during transmission. IPsec can also provide replay protection, which prevents an attacker from retransmitting old or duplicate packets. By combining SSL/TLS and IPsec, you can achieve a higher level of security and reliability for your cloud-based application. References:

EC-Council CEHv12 Courseware Module 18: Cryptography, page 18-20

EC-Council CEHv12 Courseware Module 19: Cloud Computing, page 19-29

A comprehensive guide to data tampering

Tamper Detection

The base metric represents the inherent qualities of a vulnerability, according to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS). CVSS is a framework that numerically characterizes the severity of software vulnerabilities between the range of 0-10. CVSS consists of three metric groups: Base, Temporal, and Environmental. The base metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that are constant over time and across user environments. The base metric group consists of six sub-metrics: Attack Vector, Attack Complexity, Privileges Required, User Interaction, Scope, and Impact. The impact sub-metric further consists of three sub-metrics: Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The base metric group produces a score ranging from 0 to 10, which reflects the intrinsic and fundamental properties of a vulnerability12.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

A. Temporal metric represents the inherent qualities of a vulnerability: This option is incorrect because the temporal metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that change over time due to events external to the vulnerability. The temporal metric group consists of three sub-metrics: Exploit Code Maturity, Remediation Level, and Report Confidence. The temporal metric group modifies the base score to reflect the current state of the vulnerability, such as the availability of exploit code, the existence of patches or workarounds, and the degree of verification of the vulnerability report12.

C. Environmental metric involves the features that change during the lifetime of the vulnerability: This option is incorrect because the environmental metric group captures the characteristics of a vulnerability that are relevant and unique to a user’s environment. The environmental metric group consists of three sub-metrics: Modified Attack Vector, Modified Attack Complexity, and Modified Privileges Required. The environmental metric group also allows the user to assign importance values to the impact sub-metrics: Confidentiality Requirement, Integrity Requirement, and Availability Requirement. The environmental metric group modifies the base and temporal scores to reflect the impact of the vulnerability on the user’s specific environment, such as the network configuration, the security objectives, and the asset value12.

D. Temporal metric involves measuring vulnerabilities based on a specific environment or implementation: This option is incorrect because the temporal metric group does not involve measuring vulnerabilities based on a specific environment or implementation, but rather on the factors that change over time due to events external to the vulnerability. The environmental metric group, not the temporal metric group, involves measuring vulnerabilities based on a specific environment or implementation, as explained in option C.

References:

1: What is CVSS - Common Vulnerability Scoring System - SANS Institute

2: Common Vulnerability Scoring System - Wikipedia

The payload that would have the most significant impact in the case of a successful SQL injection attack is OR ‘a’='a; DROP TABLE members; --. This payload combines the manipulation of the WHERE clause with a destructive action, causing data loss. This payload works as follows:

The OR ‘a’='a part of the payload is a logical expression that is always true, regardless of the input or the condition of the SQL statement. This part of the payload allows the attacker to bypass any authentication or authorization checks that may be implemented in the SQL statement, such as a login form or a search query.

The ; part of the payload is a statement terminator that marks the end of the current SQL statement and allows the attacker to inject another SQL statement after it. This part of the payload enables the attacker to execute multiple SQL statements in a single query, which is also known as stacked queries or batched queries.

The DROP TABLE members part of the payload is a destructive SQL statement that deletes the entire table named members from the database. This part of the payload causes data loss and may compromise the functionality and integrity of the application that relies on the table. The table name may vary depending on the target database, but the attacker can use other techniques, such as error-based or union-based SQL injection, to discover the table names before executing the drop statement.

The – part of the payload is a comment symbol that tells the SQL engine to ignore the rest of the query. This part of the payload helps the attacker to avoid any syntax errors or unwanted results that may arise from the original query.

The other options are not as impactful as option C for the following reasons:

A. ‘OR 'T="1: This payload manipulates the WHERE clause of an SQL statement, allowing the attacker to view unauthorized data. This payload is a common and basic SQL injection technique that injects a logical expression that is always true, such as 'OR 'T="1 or 'OR 1=1, to bypass the authentication or authorization checks of the SQL statement. This payload can allow the attacker to view data that they are not supposed to, such as user credentials, personal information, or financial records. However, this payload does not cause any data loss or modification, and it does not affect the functionality or integrity of the application.

B. ‘OR username LIKE '%: This payload uses the LIKE operator to search for a specific pattern in a column. This payload is a variation of the previous payload that injects a logical expression that is always true, such as 'OR username LIKE '% or 'OR 1 LIKE '%, to bypass the authentication or authorization checks of the SQL statement. The LIKE operator is used to compare a value with a pattern that may contain wildcard characters, such as % or _, which match any string or character. This payload can allow the attacker to view data that matches the pattern, such as usernames that start with a certain letter or contain a certain substring. However, this payload does not cause any data loss or modification, and it does not affect the functionality or integrity of the application.

D. UNION SELECT NULL, NULL, NULL – : This payload manipulates the UNION SQL operator, enabling the attacker to retrieve data from different database tables. This payload is an advanced SQL injection technique that injects the UNION SQL operator to combine the results of two or more SELECT statements into a single result set, which is then returned as part of the HTTP response. The UNION operator can be used to join the results from different tables that have the same number and type of columns. The NULL values are used to match the column types and avoid any errors. This payload can allow the attacker to retrieve data from tables that are not intended to be accessed by the application, such as system tables, configuration tables, or backup tables. However, this payload does not cause any data loss or modification, and it does not affect the functionality or integrity of the application.

References:

1: SQL Injection - OWASP Foundation

2: SQL Injection Payloads: How SQLi exploits work - Bright Security

3: SQL Injection - HackTricks

Probing the IPC share by attempting to brute force admin credentials is the most appropriate technique for this scenario, because it can reveal valuable information about the target system, such as its operating system, services, users, groups, and shares. An IPC share is a special share that allows processes to communicate with each other over the network using named pipes. An IPC share can be accessed anonymously or with valid credentials, depending on the security configuration of the target system. A brute force attack is a method of trying different combinations of usernames and passwords until a valid pair is found. By using a brute force attack, the tester can try to access the IPC share with admin credentials, which can grant them more privileges and access to more resources on the target system.

The other options are less suitable or effective techniques for this scenario. Brute forcing Active Directory may not be relevant or feasible, as the target system may not be part of a domain or may have strong password policies. Extracting usernames using email IDs may not provide enough information or access to the target system, as email IDs may not match the usernames or passwords. Conducting a DNS zone transfer may not be possible or useful, as the target system may not be a DNS server or may have restricted zone transfers. A DNS zone transfer is a method of obtaining information about the domain names and IP addresses of the hosts in a network by querying a DNS server. References:

Inter-process communication - Wikipedia

IPC$ share and null session behavior - Windows Server

Brute Force Attack: Definition, Examples, and Prevention

DNS Zone Transfer: Definition, Types, and Examples

One of the biggest problems a worm faces in achieving a very fast rate of infection is “getting off the ground.” although a worm spreads exponentially throughout the early stages of infection, the time needed to infect say the first 10,000 hosts dominates the infection time.

There is a straightforward way for an active worm a simple this obstacle, that we term hit-list scanning. Before the worm is free, the worm author collects a listing of say ten,000 to 50,000 potentially vulnerable machines, ideally ones with sensible network connections. The worm, when released onto an initial machine on this hit-list, begins scanning down the list. once it infects a machine, it divides the hit-list in half, communicating half to the recipient worm, keeping the other half.

This fast division ensures that even if only 10-20% of the machines on the hit-list are actually vulnerable, an active worm can quickly bear the hit-list and establish itself on all vulnerable machines in only some seconds. though the hit-list could begin at 200 kilobytes, it quickly shrinks to nothing during the partitioning. This provides a great benefit in constructing a quick worm by speeding the initial infection.

The hit-list needn’t be perfect: a simple list of machines running a selected server sort could serve, though larger accuracy can improve the unfold. The hit-list itself is generated victimization one or many of the following techniques, ready well before, typically with very little concern of detection.

Stealthy scans. Portscans are so common and then wide ignored that even a quick scan of the whole net would be unlikely to attract law enforcement attention or over gentle comment within the incident response community. However, for attackers wish to be particularly careful, a randomised sneaky scan taking many months would be not possible to attract much attention, as most intrusion detection systems are not currently capable of detecting such low-profile scans. Some portion of the scan would be out of date by the time it had been used, however abundant of it’d not.

Distributed scanning. an assailant might scan the web using a few dozen to some thousand already-compromised “zombies,” the same as what DDOS attackers assemble in a very fairly routine fashion. Such distributed scanning has already been seen within the wild–Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory received ten throughout the past year.

DNS searches. Assemble a list of domains (for example, by using wide offered spam mail lists, or trolling the address registries). The DNS will then be searched for the science addresses of mail-servers (via mx records) or net servers (by looking for www.domain.com).

Spiders. For net server worms (like Code Red), use Web-crawling techniques the same as search engines so as to produce a list of most Internet-connected web sites. this would be unlikely to draw in serious attention.

Public surveys. for many potential targets there may be surveys available listing them, like the Netcraft survey.

Just listen. Some applications, like peer-to-peer networks, wind up advertising many of their servers. Similarly, many previous worms effectively broadcast that the infected machine is vulnerable to further attack. easy, because of its widespread scanning, during the Code Red I infection it was easy to select up the addresses of upwards of 300,000 vulnerable IIS servers–because each came knock on everyone’s door!

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/access-lists/26448-ACLsamples.html

Since the first line prohibits any TCP traffic (access-list 102 deny tcp any any), the lines below will simply be ignored by the router. Below you will find the example from CISCO documentation.

This figure shows that FTP (TCP, port 21) and FTP data (port 20) traffic sourced from NetB destined to NetA is denied, while all other IP traffic is permitted.

Diagram Description automatically generated

FTP uses port 21 and port 20. TCP traffic destined to port 21 and port 20 is denied and everything else is explicitly permitted.

access-list 102 deny tcp any any eq ftp

access-list 102 deny tcp any any eq ftp-data

access-list 102 permit ip any any

An untethered jailbreak is one that allows a telephone to finish a boot cycle when being pwned with none interruption to jailbreak-oriented practicality.

Untethered jailbreaks area unit the foremost sought-after of all, however they’re additionally the foremost difficult to attain due to the powerful exploits and organic process talent they need. associate unbound jailbreak is sent over a physical USB cable association to a laptop or directly on the device itself by approach of associate application-based exploit, like a web site in campaign.

Upon running associate unbound jailbreak, you’ll be able to flip your pwned telephone off and on once more while not running the jailbreak tool once more. all of your jailbreak tweaks and apps would then continue in operation with none user intervention necessary.

It’s been an extended time since IOS has gotten the unbound jailbreak treatment. the foremost recent example was the computer-based Pangu break, that supported most handsets that ran IOS nine.1. We’ve additionally witnessed associate unbound jailbreak within the kind of JailbreakMe, that allowed users to pwn their handsets directly from the mobile campaign applications programme while not a laptop.

The deep web is the layer of the online cyberspace that consists of web pages and content that are hidden and unindexed.