Free ECCouncil 212-89 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

In the incident handling and response (IH&R) process, backing up the data on affected systems is a critical step that usually falls under the Containment phase. The Containment phase is crucial for limiting the scope and severity of an incident, ensuring that it does not spread further or affect additional systems. Backing up affected systems during containment is essential for several reasons: it preserves a snapshot of the system in its current state for forensic analysis, ensures that data is not lost if the system needs to be wiped or altered during the response process, and helps in the recovery process if data is corrupted or lost.

By performing a complete backup of the infected system during the Containment phase, Alice ensures that there is a reliable copy of all data and system states before any major actions, such as eradication or deeper forensic analysis, are taken. This step is also preparatory for the potential use of the backup in analyzing how the incident occurred and in restoring system functionality after the incident is resolved.

In the ECIH email incident response framework, eradication extends beyond internal cleanup and includes threat intelligence sharing. Option B is correct because sharing phishing indicators with trusted security communities helps disrupt attacker infrastructure and prevents reuse of the same campaign against other organizations.

Option A is unrelated. Option C is ineffective against phishing. Option D is overly destructive and unnecessary.

ECIH promotes collaborative defense as part of post-detection eradication and prevention.

When you receive a screenshot from Nervous Nat and go through a list of questions, check resources for information to determine the nature of the screenshot, and assess the condition of your network, you are engaging in the Detection and Analysis (or Identification) phase of Incident Response (IR). This phase is about identifying potential security incidents based on reported concerns, anomalies detected by security tools, or through the analysis of security alerts. In this scenario, despite the historical context of false positives, each report is treated seriously, requiring you to collect and analyze information to determine whether a real attack is happening. This involves verifying the validity of the incident, assessing its nature, scope, and impact, and deciding on the appropriate next steps. The detection and analysis phase is critical for determining the course of the IR process, including whether escalation is needed and what response measures should be initiated.

Shally has incorporated the Defense-in-depth strategy into the incident response plan for Texas Pvt. Ltd. Defense-in-depth is a layered security approach that involves implementing multiple security measures and controls throughout an information system. This strategy is designed to provide several defensive barriers to protect against threats and attacks, ensuring that if one layer is compromised, others still provide protection. The goal is to create a multi-faceted defense that addresses potential vulnerabilities in various areas, including physical security, network security, application security, and user education.

In the scenario described, Dickson is performing an active assessment. This type of vulnerability assessment involves using automated tools to actively scan and probe the network for identifying hosts, services, and vulnerabilities. Unlike passive assessments, which rely on monitoring network traffic without direct interaction with the targets, active assessments engage directly with the network infrastructure to discover vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and other security issues by sending data to systems and analyzing the responses. This approach provides a more immediate and detailed view of the security posture but can also generate detectable traffic that might be noticed by defensive systems or affect the performance of live systems.

Michael’s actions reflect crime scene control, a foundational first-response principle in the ECIH forensic readiness module. Securing the area, preventing unauthorized access, and avoiding system changes preserve evidence integrity.

Option C is correct because his primary objective is to secure and evaluate the digital crime scene before evidence collection begins. ECIH stresses that scene control prevents contamination, tampering, and accidental evidence destruction.

Options A, B, and D may follow but are not the immediate objective.

The primary objective of endpoint incident handling, as outlined in the ECIH curriculum, is rapid containment and eradication of threats to preserve business operations. Advanced malware that bypasses traditional defenses requires coordinated response capabilities to prevent widespread compromise.

Option D is correct because endpoint IH&R enables organizations to quickly isolate infected systems, remove malicious components, and restore trusted states, thereby maintaining operational continuity. ECIH emphasizes speed and coordination as critical success factors in endpoint response.

Option A is secondary. Option B is a compliance outcome, not a response objective. Option C is a consequence, not the primary driver.

Therefore, the most critical reason is to ensure rapid containment and eradication, making Option D correct.

The correct sequence of steps performed by incident responders during the vulnerability assessment phase is as follows:

Perform OSINT information gathering to validate the vulnerabilities (4):Initially, Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) is used to gather information about the organization’s digital footprint and potential vulnerabilities.

Run vulnerability scans using tools (1):Next, specialized tools are employed to scan the organization's networks and systems for vulnerabilities.

Identify and prioritize vulnerabilities (2):The identified vulnerabilities are then analyzed and prioritized based on their severity and potential impact on the organization.

Examine and evaluate physical security (3):Physical security assessments are also crucial as they can impact the overall security posture and protection of digital assets.

Check for misconfigurations and human errors (6):This step involves looking for misconfigurations in systems and networks, as well as potential human errors that could lead to vulnerabilities.

Apply business and technology context to scanner results (5):The results from the scans are evaluated within the context of the business and its technology environment to accurately assess risks.

Create a vulnerability scan report (7):Finally, a comprehensive report is created, detailing the vulnerabilities, their severity, and recommended mitigation strategies.

This sequence ensures a thorough assessment, prioritizing vulnerabilities that pose the greatest risk and providing actionable insights for mitigation.

This scenario involves a suspected malicious insider threat with potential external collusion, which significantly elevates legal, regulatory, and evidentiary requirements. The ECIH curriculum emphasizes that when insider activity is suspected—especially involving terminated employees and possible corporate espionage—organizations must prioritize forensic integrity, confidentiality, and lawful investigation.

Option B is correct because collaborating with external forensic experts and law enforcement ensures a neutral, legally defensible investigation. ECIH stresses that insider cases often require specialized forensic capabilities, evidence preservation, and legal authority that internal teams alone may not possess. Maintaining confidentiality protects the organization from reputational damage and legal exposure while facts are being established.

Option A ignores the insider dimension and risks repeat incidents. Option C bypasses legal safeguards and could be interpreted as obstruction or collusion. Option D is premature and exposes the organization to defamation and legal risk without substantiated evidence.

ECIH guidance is clear that complex insider incidents should be escalated appropriately with legal and forensic rigor. Therefore, Option B aligns best with recommended practice.

The described activity—ICMP echo requests sent sequentially across many IP addresses—is a classic ping sweep, a reconnaissance technique used to identify live hosts on a network. ECIH network incident handling identifies reconnaissance as an early-stage attack activity that often precedes exploitation.

Option B is correct because ping sweeps use ICMP echo requests to determine which hosts respond, allowing attackers to map the network. This aligns exactly with the observed traffic.

Option A involves DNS manipulation. Option C involves probing TCP/UDP ports rather than ICMP. Option D describes a denial-of-service technique, not reconnaissance.

Recognizing reconnaissance activity early allows defenders to implement controls before exploitation occurs, aligning with ECIH detection and prevention guidance.