ECCouncil 312-50v13 - Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13)

CEH v13 identifies kernel-level rootkits as among the most dangerous malware types. Because they operate at the lowest OS level, they can hide processes, files, and system calls.

CEH v13 states that the only guaranteed remediation is a complete system wipe and clean OS reinstallation from a trusted source. Attempting removal risks incomplete eradication.

Powering down alone does not remove the rootkit. Honeypots are for detection, not remediation. Tailored removal tools may fail at kernel depth.

Thus, Option C is correct.

MAC flooding is a Layer 2 attack described in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking, where attackers overwhelm a switch’s CAM table with fake MAC addresses. Once the table is full, the switch behaves like a hub, forwarding traffic to all ports.

The most definitive indicator of MAC flooding is numerous MAC addresses learned on a single switch port, which is abnormal behavior in a properly segmented network. CEH v13 identifies this condition as a key forensic indicator of CAM table exhaustion.

ARP anomalies may occur, but they are more commonly associated with ARP spoofing attacks. IP-to-MAC inconsistencies indicate MITM attacks, not MAC flooding.

Thus, option C is the clearest confirmation.

A brute-force attack is the most exhaustive password-cracking method. It tries every possible combination of characters (letters, numbers, and symbols) until the correct password is found.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Password Cracking Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Brute-force attacks try every possible combination until the correct password is discovered. It’s resource-intensive but guarantees success if enough time and processing power is available.”

Incorrect Options:

B: Refers to social engineering or coercion.

C: Describes a dictionary attack.

D: Refers to a rainbow table attack.

E: Not a cracking method.

Nmap provides a scripting engine (NSE) that includes a script named http-methods. This script sends OPTIONS requests to the web server to determine which HTTP methods are supported. Identifying risky methods like PUT and DELETE helps detect misconfigured or vulnerable web servers.

Example command:

nmap --script http-methods -p 80

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 11: Hacking Web Applications

Quote:

“The Nmap script http-methods helps identify enabled HTTP methods including potentially dangerous ones like PUT and DELETE.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

B. http-enum is used to enumerate directories and applications, not methods.

C. http-headers retrieves HTTP headers.

D. http-git checks for Git repositories on web servers.

=

According to CEH v13 Security Operations and Incident Response, zero-day vulnerabilities pose one of the highest operational risks because exploits exist before official remediation is available. When active exploitation is observed and no vendor patch exists, immediate compensating controls must be deployed.

The first and most effective action is implementing virtual patching, typically through a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). CEH v13 defines virtual patching as a security measure that blocks exploitation attempts at the network or application layer without modifying the vulnerable software. This approach allows organizations to maintain service availability while reducing exposure.

Shutting down the server (Option A) may prevent exploitation but introduces unacceptable business disruption and is not recommended as a first response. Backups and incident response planning (Option C) are critical but do not actively prevent exploitation. Passive monitoring (Option D) allows attackers to continue exploiting the vulnerability unchecked.

CEH v13 emphasizes that virtual patching is the preferred first response for zero-day threats, especially when systems are mission-critical. It provides immediate risk reduction while allowing time for vendor patch development and controlled deployment.

An evil twin may be a fraudulent Wi-Fi access point that appears to be legitimate but is about up to pay attention to wireless communications.[1] The evil twin is that the wireless LAN equivalent of the phishing scam.

This type of attack could also be wont to steal the passwords of unsuspecting users, either by monitoring their connections or by phishing, which involves fixing a fraudulent internet site and luring people there.

The attacker snoops on Internet traffic employing a bogus wireless access point. Unwitting web users could also be invited to log into the attacker’s server, prompting them to enter sensitive information like usernames and passwords. Often, users are unaware they need been duped until well after the incident has occurred.

When users log into unsecured (non-HTTPS) bank or e-mail accounts, the attacker intercepts the transaction, since it’s sent through their equipment. The attacker is additionally ready to hook up with other networks related to the users’ credentials.

Fake access points are found out by configuring a wireless card to act as an access point (known as HostAP). they’re hard to trace since they will be shut off instantly. The counterfeit access point could also be given an equivalent SSID and BSSID as a close-by Wi-Fi network. The evil twin are often configured to pass Internet traffic through to the legitimate access point while monitoring the victim’s connection, or it can simply say the system is temporarily unavailable after obtaining a username and password.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

An incident checklist is a low-overhead, high-impact solution to improve procedural consistency under pressure. It ensures critical steps are not forgotten during stressful incidents. The checklist can be reused and updated easily and is a recognized best practice in incident response processes.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 19: Incident Response and Forensics → Incident Handling Procedures

In CEH v13 Module 04: Enumeration, identifying services based on well-known port numbers is foundational for enumeration and scanning activities.

Port 21/TCP is assigned to the File Transfer Protocol (FTP).

FTP is a standard protocol used to upload, download, and manage files on a remote server.

During enumeration, open FTP ports can be probed for:

Anonymous login

Banner grabbing

Directory traversal vulnerabilities

Option Clarification:

A. BGP: Runs on TCP port 179.

C. NFS: Commonly uses port 2049.

D. RPC: Dynamically uses multiple ports.

Correct answer is B. FTP (port 21).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikto_(vulnerability_scanner)

Nikto is a free software command-line vulnerability scanner that scans web servers for dangerous files/CGIs, outdated server software, and other problems. It performs generic and server types specific checks. It also captures and prints any cookies received. The Nikto code itself is free software, but the data files it uses to drive the program are not.

These types of attacks occur when faults or glitches are INJECTED into the Power supply that can be used for remote execution.

Hashing algorithms are specifically designed to ensure data integrity. A hash function takes an input and returns a fixed-length string, called a hash or message digest. Even a small change in the input results in a completely different hash, making it useful for detecting tampering.

Common hashing algorithms include:

MD5 (now obsolete for secure uses)

SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3

HMAC (Hashed Message Authentication Code)

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 20: Cryptography

Topic: Hash Functions and Data Integrity

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Hashing algorithms provide integrity by generating a unique digital fingerprint of data. Any alteration in the message content will result in a different hash value, indicating that the integrity has been compromised.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Symmetric algorithms provide confidentiality.

B: Asymmetric algorithms provide confidentiality and authentication.

D: "Integrity algorithms" is not a formal cryptographic term.

In the CEH Denial-of-Service and Network Attacks coverage, a SYN flood is a classic TCP-based DoS technique that exploits the TCP connection establishment process. In a normal handshake, the client sends SYN, the server replies SYN/ACK, and the client completes with ACK. A SYN flood deliberately sends a high volume of SYN packets (often spoofed) but never completes the final ACK. As CEH describes, this leaves the server holding many half-open connections in SYN_RECEIVED, consuming memory and connection table resources (backlog queue). When the backlog fills, legitimate clients cannot establish connections, degrading availability.

The indicators in your scenario align exactly with CEH’s SYN flood fingerprints: incomplete handshakes and accumulation of half-open connections. The goal is resource exhaustion at the connection-management layer rather than bandwidth saturation.

Option B (Ping of Death) involves malformed/oversized ICMP packets and does not match SYN_RECEIVED behavior. Option C (UDP flood) targets UDP services/ports and creates different symptoms (high UDP traffic, ICMP unreachable messages, service degradation) without half-open TCP states. Option D (Smurf) is ICMP-based amplification via broadcast addresses—again unrelated to incomplete TCP handshakes.

CEH also notes mitigations such as SYN cookies, increasing backlog, reducing SYN-RECEIVED timers, rate limiting, and upstream filtering—further reinforcing that the described event is a SYN flood.

Josh is preparing to send the payload (malicious file) to the target, which clearly maps to the Delivery phase of the Cyber Kill Chain.

According to CEH v13 and the Cyber Kill Chain model (developed by Lockheed Martin and used in ethical hacking methodology):

Delivery is the third phase of the kill chain.

It involves transmitting the weaponized payload to the target via phishing emails, USB drops, or malicious links.

In this case, Josh is preparing the email with a spoofed identity and malicious attachment — representing an act of delivery.

Incorrect options:

A. Exploitation occurs after delivery, when the payload is executed.

B. Weaponization is the phase where the malicious file is created (combining exploit with a backdoor or trojan).

D. Reconnaissance involves information gathering, completed earlier in the scenario.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Section: “Cyber Kill Chain Model”

Table Reference: “Stages of a Cyber Attack”

CEH Engage Lab: “Kill Chain Simulation in Phishing Campaigns”

Kernel-mode rootkits run with the best operating system privileges (Ring 0) by adding code or replacement parts of the core operating system, as well as each the kernel and associated device drivers. Most operative systems support kernel-mode device drivers, that execute with a similar privileges because the software itself. As such, several kernel-mode rootkits square measure developed as device drivers or loadable modules, like loadable kernel modules in Linux or device drivers in Microsoft Windows. This category of rootkit has unrestricted security access, however is tougher to jot down. The quality makes bugs common, and any bugs in code operative at the kernel level could seriously impact system stability, resulting in discovery of the rootkit. one amongst the primary wide familiar kernel rootkits was developed for Windows NT four.0 and discharged in Phrack magazine in 1999 by Greg Hoglund. Kernel rootkits is particularly tough to observe and take away as a result of they operate at a similar security level because the software itself, and square measure therefore able to intercept or subvert the foremost sure software operations. Any package, like antivirus package, running on the compromised system is equally vulnerable. during this scenario, no a part of the system is sure.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Tshark is the command-line version of Wireshark. The correct syntax for filtering packets from a subnet:

sudo tshark -f "net 192.168.8.0/24"

This captures only the traffic from that IP range. It’s ideal for cron jobs and automated monitoring.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing → Tshark and Wireshark Usage

Information Gathering from Robots.txt File A website owner creates a robots.txt file to list the files or directories a web crawler should index for providing search results. Poorly written robots.txt files can cause the complete indexing of website files and directories. If confidential files and directories are indexed, an attacker may easily obtain information such as passwords, email addresses, hidden links, and membership areas. If the owner of the target website writes the robots.txt file without allowing the indexing of restricted pages for providing search results, an attacker can still view the robots.txt file of the site to discover restricted files and then view them to gather information. An attacker types URL/robots.txt in the address bar of a browser to view the target website’s robots.txt file. An attacker can also download the robots.txt file of a target website using the Wget tool. Certified Ethical Hacker(CEH) Version 11 pg 1650

A hybrid encryption system is a system that combines the advantages of both asymmetric and symmetric encryption algorithms. Asymmetric encryption, such as RSA, uses a pair of keys: a public key and a private key, which are mathematically related but not identical. Asymmetric encryption can provide key exchange, authentication, and non-repudiation, but it is slower and less efficient than symmetric encryption. Symmetric encryption, such as AES, uses a single key to encrypt and decrypt data. Symmetric encryption is faster and more efficient than asymmetric encryption, but it requires a secure way to share the key.

In a hybrid encryption system, RSA encryption is used for key exchange, and AES encryption is used for data encryption. This way, the system can benefit from the security of RSA and the speed of AES. However, the system also depends on the key sizes of both algorithms, which affect the security and performance of the system.

The key size of RSA encryption determines the number of bits in the public and private keys. The larger the key size, the more secure the encryption, but also the slower the key generation and encryption/decryption processes. The time complexity of generating an RSA key pair is O(n*2), where n is the key size in bits. This means that the time required to generate an RSA key pair increases quadratically with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to generate a 1024-bit RSA key pair, it will take 4 seconds to generate a 2048-bit RSA key pair, and 16 seconds to generate a 4096-bit RSA key pair.

The key size of AES encryption determines the number of bits in the symmetric key. The larger the key size, the more secure the encryption, but also the more rounds of encryption/decryption are needed. The time complexity of AES encryption is O(n), where n is the key size in bits. This means that the time required to encrypt/decrypt data increases linearly with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to encrypt/decrypt data with a 128-bit AES key, it will take 2 seconds to encrypt/decrypt data with a 256-bit AES key, and 4 seconds to encrypt/decrypt data with a 512-bit AES key.

An attacker has developed a quantum algorithm with time complexity O((log n)*2) to crack RSA encryption. This means that the time required to break RSA encryption decreases exponentially with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to break a 1024-bit RSA encryption, it will take 0.25 seconds to break a 2048-bit RSA encryption, and 0.0625 seconds to break a 4096-bit RSA encryption. This makes RSA encryption vulnerable to quantum attacks, unless the key size is very large.

Given n=4000 and variable AES key size, the scenario that is likely to provide the best balance of security and performance is C. AES key size=192 bits. This configuration is a compromise between options A and B, providing moderate security and performance. Option A, AES key size=128 bits, provides less security than option C, but RSA key generation and AES encryption will be faster. Option B, AES key size=256 bits, provides more security than option C, but RSA key generation may be slow. Option D, AES key size=512 bits, provides the highest level of security, but at a significant performance cost due to the large AES key size.

The CEH Cryptanalysis module describes differential cryptanalysis as an attack that studies the relationship between differences in input and resulting differences in output to recover secret keys.

Option A precisely matches this definition.

Option B relies on execution timing.

Option C requires ciphertext manipulation.

Option D exhaustively tests keys.

CEH lists differential cryptanalysis as a foundational theoretical attack.

White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) is a method of software testing that tests internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (i.e. black-box testing). In white-box testing, an internal perspective of the system, as well as programming skills, are used to design test cases. The tester chooses inputs to exercise paths through the code and determine the expected outputs. This is analogous to testing nodes in a circuit, e.g. in-circuit testing (ICT). White-box testing can be applied at the unit, integration and system levels of the software testing process. Although traditional testers tended to think of white-box testing as being done at the unit level, it is used for integration and system testing more frequently today. It can test paths within a unit, paths between units during integration, and between subsystems during a system-level test. Though this method of test design can uncover many errors or problems, it has the potential to miss unimplemented parts of the specification or missing requirements. Where white-box testing is design-driven,[1] that is, driven exclusively by agreed specifications of how each component of the software is required to behave (as in DO-178C and ISO 26262 processes) then white-box test techniques can accomplish assessment for unimplemented or missing requirements.

White-box test design techniques include the following code coverage criteria:

· Control flow testing

· Data flow testing

· Branch testing

· Statement coverage

· Decision coverage

· Modified condition/decision coverage

· Prime path testing

· Path testing

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The netstat (network statistics) command is used to display:

Current TCP/UDP connections

Listening ports

Routing tables

Interface statistics

This is one of the most common tools for network troubleshooting and monitoring on Windows and Linux.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks → System and Network Utilities