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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Fake antivirus (also known as scareware) tricks users into downloading malware disguised as legitimate antivirus software.

The best approach:

Google the product name and URL.

Check reputable forums, antivirus vendors, or security advisories.

Look for phishing warnings or reports of malware.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 7: Social Engineering and Phishing Scams

Module 6: Malware Threats → Rogue Software

Triple DES is another mode of DES operation. It takes three 64-bit keys, for an overall key length of 192 bits. In Stealth, you merely type within the entire 192-bit (24 character) key instead of entering each of the three keys individually. The Triple DES DLL then breaks the user-provided key into three subkeys, padding the keys if necessary in order that they are each 64 bits long. The procedure for encryption is strictly an equivalent as regular DES, but it’s repeated 3 times , hence the name Triple DES. the info is encrypted with the primary key, decrypted with the second key, and eventually encrypted again with the third key.

Triple DES runs 3 times slower than DES, but is far safer if used properly. The procedure for decrypting something is that the same because the procedure for encryption, except it’s executed in reverse. Like DES, data is encrypted and decrypted in 64-bit chunks. Although the input key for DES is 64 bits long, the particular key employed by DES is merely 56 bits long . the smallest amount significant (right-most) bit in each byte may be a parity , and will be set in order that there are always an odd number of 1s in every byte. These parity bits are ignored, so only the seven most vital bits of every byte are used, leading to a key length of 56 bits. this suggests that the effective key strength for Triple DES is really 168 bits because each of the three keys contains 8 parity bits that aren’t used during the encryption process.

Triple DES Modes

Triple ECB (Electronic Code Book)

• This variant of Triple DES works precisely the same way because the ECB mode of DES.

• this is often the foremost commonly used mode of operation.

Triple CBC (Cipher Block Chaining)

• This method is extremely almost like the quality DES CBC mode.

• like Triple ECB, the effective key length is 168 bits and keys are utilized in an equivalent manner, as described above, but the chaining features of CBC mode also are employed.

• the primary 64-bit key acts because the Initialization Vector to DES.

• Triple ECB is then executed for one 64-bit block of plaintext.

• The resulting ciphertext is then XORed with subsequent plaintext block to be encrypted, and therefore the procedure is repeated.

• This method adds an additional layer of security to Triple DES and is therefore safer than Triple ECB, although it’s not used as widely as Triple ECB.

Verbose failure messages are detailed error messages that reveal too much information about authentication failures. In the described scenario, the web application specifies whether the username or password is incorrect. This behavior enables attackers to:

Enumerate valid usernames by submitting random inputs and observing which error message is returned.

Use the valid usernames to conduct targeted attacks such as brute-force attempts or social engineering.

According to CEH v13:

Authentication mechanisms should provide generic error messages such as “Invalid username or password” to avoid exposing system behavior.

Verbose error messages violate the principle of "fail securely."

Incorrect Options:

A. Insecure transmission relates to credentials being sent over unencrypted channels (e.g., HTTP instead of HTTPS).

C. User impersonation involves taking on the identity of another user, not enumeration.

D. Password reset mechanisms are a different component of authentication, not mentioned in this context.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Authentication Bypass Techniques”

Subsection: “Enumeration via Verbose Error Messages”

=

This phase having the hacker uses different techniques and tools to realize maximum data from the system. they’re –

• Password cracking – Methods like Bruteforce, dictionary attack, rule-based attack, rainbow table are used. Bruteforce is trying all combinations of the password. Dictionary attack is trying an inventory of meaningful words until the password matches. Rainbow table takes the hash value of the password and compares with pre-computed hash values until a match is discovered.

• Password attacks – Passive attacks like wire sniffing, replay attack. Active online attack like Trojans, keyloggers, hash injection, phishing. Offline attacks like pre-computed hash, distributed network and rainbow. Non electronic attack like shoulder surfing, social engineering and dumpster diving.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

SIEM (Security Information and Event Management) systems aggregate logs and alerts from across the network—servers, routers, firewalls, IDS/IPS, and applications—and correlate that data to identify suspicious or malicious activity.

They provide:

Real-time alerting

Long-term log storage

Compliance reporting

Incident response facilitation

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 12: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots → SIEM Tools

Error-based SQL Injection is a type of in-band SQL Injection attack that relies on error messages thrown by the database server to obtain information about the structure of the database. In some cases, error-based SQL injection alone is enough for an attacker to enumerate an entire database.

The ethical hacker is likely to use this type of SQL Injection attack because the application responds to logically incorrect queries with detailed error messages that divulge the underlying database’s structure. This means that the attacker can craft malicious SQL queries that trigger errors and reveal information such as table names, column names, data types, etc. The attacker can then use this information to construct more complex queries that extract data from the database.

For example, if the application uses the following query to display the username of a user based on the user ID:

SELECT username FROM users WHERE id = '$id'

The attacker can inject a single quote at the end of the user ID parameter to cause a syntax error:

SELECT username FROM users WHERE id = '1'

The application might display an error message like this:

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ''1'' at line 1

This error message reveals that the database server is MySQL and that the user ID parameter is enclosed in single quotes. The attacker can then use other techniques such as UNION, subqueries, or conditional statements to manipulate the query and retrieve data from other tables or columns.

The most effective attack method for the penetration tester to exploit these vulnerabilities and attempt unauthorized access would be to execute a Brute Force attack, leveraging the lack of account lockout policy and the verbose error messages to guess the correct credentials. A Brute Force attack is a hacking method that uses trial and error to crack passwords, login credentials, or encryption keys. It is a simple yet reliable tactic for gaining unauthorized access to individual accounts and organizations’ systems and networks1. In this scenario, the tester can take advantage of the fact that the application does not lock out users after multiple failed login attempts, which means the tester can try as many combinations as possible without being blocked. The tester can also use the detailed error messages that disclose whether the username or password entered is incorrect, which can help narrow down the search space and reduce the number of guesses needed. For example, if the tester enters a wrong username and a wrong password, and the application responds with “Invalid username”, the tester can eliminate that username from the list of candidates and focus on finding the correct one. Similarly, if the tester enters a correct username and a wrong password, and the application responds with “Invalid password”, the tester can confirm that username and focus on finding the correct password. By using automated tools or scripts, the tester can perform a Brute Force attack faster and more efficiently.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as option A for the following reasons:

B. The tester could exploit a potential SQL Injection vulnerability to manipulate the application’s database: This option is not feasible because there is no indication that the application is vulnerable to SQL Injection, which is a web security vulnerability that allows an attacker to interfere with the queries that an application makes to its database2. The application uses form-based authentication, which does not necessarily involve SQL queries, and the error messages do not reveal any SQL syntax or structure. Moreover, even if the application was vulnerable to SQL Injection, the tester would need to craft a malicious SQL query that can bypass the authentication mechanism and grant access to the application, which may not be possible or easy depending on the database design and configuration.

C. The tester could launch a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack to steal authenticated session cookies, potentially bypassing the clickjacking protection: This option is not effective because there is no evidence that the application is vulnerable to XSS, which is a web security vulnerability that allows an attacker to compromise the interactions that users have with a vulnerable application by injecting malicious scripts3. The application uses HTTP headers to prevent clickjacking attacks, which are a type of attack that tricks a user into clicking on a hidden or disguised element on a web page4. However, this does not imply that the application is vulnerable to XSS, which requires a different type of injection point and payload. Moreover, even if the application was vulnerable to XSS, the tester would need to find a way to deliver the malicious script to a legitimate user who is already authenticated, and then capture the stolen session cookies from the user’s browser, which may not be feasible or easy depending on the application’s design and security measures.

D. The tester could execute a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack to intercept and modify the HTTP headers for a Clickjacking attack: This option is not feasible because a MitM attack is a type of attack that requires the attacker to insert themselves between two parties who believe that they are directly communicating with each other, and then relay or alter the communications between them5. In this scenario, the tester would need to intercept the HTTP traffic between the user and the application, and then modify the HTTP headers to remove or weaken the clickjacking protection. However, this would require the tester to have access to the network infrastructure or the user’s device, which may not be possible or easy depending on the network security and encryption. Moreover, even if the tester could perform a MitM attack, the tester would still need to trick the user into clicking on a malicious element on a web page, which may not be possible or easy depending on the user’s awareness and behavior.

CEH v13 explains that fingerprinting is a core reconnaissance technique used to identify software versions, server types, and configurations by analyzing how systems respond to crafted or abnormal input. When testers send malformed HTTP verbs, unusual headers, or atypical URI structures, the server’s specific response codes, banners, and error messages reveal distinctive behavioral patterns. These patterns allow tools like httprint, Nmap NSE scripts, and custom probes to match the responses to known server profiles. This technique is part of active reconnaissance, enabling attackers to determine vulnerabilities associated with specific versions. Phishing (Option B) is unrelated to protocol analysis. Session fixation (Option C) manipulates session identifiers, not HTTP response patterns. Persistent XSS (Option D) relies on web application vulnerabilities, not server fingerprinting. Thus, the tester is performing HTTP-based server fingerprinting.

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.

CEH materials describe RDDoS (Ransom DDoS) attacks as threat-driven extortion campaigns where attackers demand payment and demonstrate capability by launching a short-lived DDoS burst. The purpose is to intimidate the victim into paying before a larger, sustained attack begins. The attack described uses HTTP floods with incomplete POST requests—an application-layer DDoS technique that consumes server resources by forcing the target to hold open connections. This kind of demonstration followed by an extortion email aligns precisely with RDDoS behavior. DRDoS attacks involve reflection/amplification through third-party servers, which is not occurring here. Pulse wave attacks use timed bursts and do not involve extortion, while recursive GET floods do not match the incomplete POST behavior. Therefore, the correct classification is RDDoS.

This scenario represents a classic baiting attack, a social engineering technique explicitly described in CEH v13 Social Engineering. In baiting, attackers exploit human curiosity or greed by leaving behind a malicious physical device—most commonly a USB drive—with an enticing label. When the victim plugs the device into a system, malware is automatically executed, leading to compromise.

Option A precisely captures this behavior. The label “Employee Salary Info 2024” is intentionally designed to entice the victim into interacting with the device. CEH v13 highlights USB baiting as particularly dangerous because it bypasses technical controls and relies solely on human behavior.

Option B describes pretexting, which involves impersonation. Option C refers to dumpster diving. Option D describes tailgating, a physical access attack. None of these match the USB-based lure described.

CEH v13 emphasizes that baiting attacks are highly effective in corporate environments and recommends strong security awareness training and disabling USB autorun features as mitigation.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Containers share the same host operating system kernel, unlike VMs which run isolated kernels. This shared kernel increases the attack surface — a compromise in one container can potentially affect the entire host if kernel-level access is obtained.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications → Container Security

“Containers are less secure because they share the host kernel. Attackers compromising the container can exploit vulnerabilities in the shared OS.”

SSL/TLS uses a hybrid cryptographic approach:

Asymmetric cryptography is used during the handshake phase to securely exchange symmetric session keys over an insecure network.

After the key exchange, symmetric encryption (e.g., AES) is used for the bulk of data transfer due to its high performance and lower overhead.

This approach balances security and efficiency by leveraging asymmetric encryption for secure key exchange and symmetric encryption for speed.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography

Section: SSL/TLS

Quote:

“SSL/TLS uses asymmetric cryptography to negotiate keys and symmetric cryptography to encrypt data. This combination ensures secure, fast, and reliable communication.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Not relevant — all devices follow the protocol regardless of capability.

B. There is no failover mechanism as described.

C. Session keys are exchanged during the handshake, not out-of-band.

Zero Trust Networks The Zero Trust model is a security implementation that by default assumes every user trying to access the network is not a trusted entity and verifies every incoming connection before allowing access to the network.It strictly follows the principle, “Trust no one and validate before providing a cloud service or granting access permission.”It also allows companies to impose conditions, such as allowing employees to only access the appropriate resources required for their work role. (P.2997/2981)

Zero Trust is a strategic initiative that helps prevent successful data breaches by eliminating the concept of trust from an organization’s network architecture. Rooted in the principle of “never trust, always verify,” Zero Trust is designed to protect modern digital environments by leveraging network segmentation, preventing lateral movement, providing Layer 7 threat prevention, and simplifying granular user-access control.

Risk assessment is a key process in security management that identifies, evaluates, and prioritizes risks to organizational operations and assets. It considers various controls and safeguards to mitigate those risks.

Administrative safeguards are part of the components used in risk assessments and include:

Policies

Procedures

Training

Security awareness programs

Incident response planning

From CEH v13:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Module 20: Cryptography (as it discusses risk management and governance)

Topic: Security Controls and Risk Management Frameworks

CEH v13 Official Courseware states:

“Administrative controls, also known as administrative safeguards, form a critical component of risk assessments. These include documented security policies, user training, security audits, and incident response plans that help an organization manage and reduce risks.”

Incorrect Options:

B. Physical security is a type of safeguard but not typically referred to as a "component" of a risk assessment itself.

C. DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) is a network architecture concept, not a risk assessment component.

D. Logical interface refers to system architecture and network segmentation—not risk assessment methodology.

A honeypot may be a trap that an IT pro lays for a malicious hacker, hoping that they will interact with it during a way that gives useful intelligence. It’s one among the oldest security measures in IT, but beware: luring hackers onto your network, even on an isolated system, are often a dangerous game.

honeypot may be a good starting place: “A honeypot may be a computer or computing system intended to mimic likely targets of cyberattacks.” Often a honeypot are going to be deliberately configured with known vulnerabilities in situation to form a more tempting or obvious target for attackers. A honeypot won’t contain production data or participate in legitimate traffic on your network — that’s how you’ll tell anything happening within it’s a results of an attack. If someone’s stopping by, they’re up to no good.

That definition covers a various array of systems, from bare-bones virtual machines that only offer a couple of vulnerable systems to ornately constructed fake networks spanning multiple servers. and therefore the goals of these who build honeypots can vary widely also , starting from defense thorough to academic research. additionally , there’s now an entire marketing category of deception technology that, while not meeting the strict definition of a honeypot, is certainly within the same family. But we’ll get thereto during a moment.

honeypots aim to permit close analysis of how hackers do their dirty work. The team controlling the honeypot can watch the techniques hackers use to infiltrate systems, escalate privileges, and otherwise run amok through target networks. These sorts of honeypots are found out by security companies, academics, and government agencies looking to look at the threat landscape. Their creators could also be curious about learning what kind of attacks are out there, getting details on how specific sorts of attacks work, or maybe trying to lure a specific hackers within the hopes of tracing the attack back to its source. These systems are often inbuilt fully isolated lab environments, which ensures that any breaches don’t end in non-honeypot machines falling prey to attacks.

Production honeypots, on the opposite hand, are usually deployed in proximity to some organization’s production infrastructure, though measures are taken to isolate it the maximum amount as possible. These honeypots often serve both as bait to distract hackers who could also be trying to interrupt into that organization’s network, keeping them faraway from valuable data or services; they will also function a canary within the coalpit , indicating that attacks are underway and are a minimum of partially succeeding.

WS-Address provides additional routing information in the SOAP header to support asynchronous communication. This technique allows the transmission of web service requests and response messages using different TCP connections

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d &q=WS-Address+spoofing

CEH V11 Module 14 Page 1896

TCP NULL scanning is a stealth scanning technique covered in CEH v13 Reconnaissance and Network Scanning. In a NULL scan, all TCP flags are set to zero. According to RFC 793 and CEH documentation, closed ports must respond with a TCP RST (Reset) packet.

If the port is open, the target typically does not respond, making this technique useful for firewall evasion. Therefore:

RST response = Closed port

No response = Open or filtered port

Other options do not apply to NULL scans:

SYN/ACK is associated with SYN scans.

ICMP errors may indicate filtering, not port state.

CEH v13 explains that multi-vector DDoS attacks, especially those combining volumetric reflection (DNS amplification) with application-layer exhaustion (Slowloris), require multi-layered mitigation. Standard firewalls and IPS devices cannot handle large-scale distributed attacks without causing collateral damage to legitimate traffic. CEH emphasizes the need for hybrid DDoS protection, combining on-premises appliances for real-time local filtering with cloud-based scrubbing centers capable of absorbing massive volumetric floods. Cloud scrubbing removes malicious traffic upstream, while on-prem devices mitigate application-layer anomalies. Increasing bandwidth (Option A) is ineffective against reflection attacks. IPS (Option B) cannot handle Slowloris-style partial requests at scale. Blocking all external DNS/HTTP (Option C) would deny service to legitimate users. The correct CEH-aligned solution is hybrid DDoS mitigation services.

A demilitarized zone (DMZ) is a buffer zone between a trusted internal network and an untrusted external network (usually the internet). Public-facing services like web servers, email servers, and DNS servers are typically placed in the DMZ. These nodes can be accessed from the internet, but the DMZ design ensures that unauthorized access to the internal network is blocked or highly restricted.

The purpose is to provide access to certain systems without exposing the internal network directly.