Free ECCouncil 312-49v11 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

According to the CHFI v11 objectives underNetwork ForensicsandWireless Network Security, investigators must be able todiscover, analyze, and visualize wireless network activitywhen assessing potential threats such as rogue access points, weak encryption, or signal leakage beyond controlled premises.NetSurveyoris a specialized wireless network discovery and diagnostic tool designed precisely for this purpose.

NetSurveyor passively detects nearby wireless access points and displays real-time information such asSSID (AP name), signal strength, channel usage, encryption type, and MAC addresses. One of its key strengths—explicitly aligned with CHFI training—is its ability to present this data usinggraphical charts and diagnostic views, making it easier for investigators to identify abnormal signal patterns, unauthorized APs, or overlapping channels that may indicate security weaknesses or malicious activity.

The other options are not suitable for wireless network assessment.John the Ripperandhashcatare password-cracking tools used in credential analysis, not network visualization.Netcraftis primarily used for website and server footprinting, not real-time wireless network monitoring.

The CHFI Exam Blueprint v4 emphasizesinvestigating wireless network traffic, detecting rogue access points, and performing attack and vulnerability monitoring, all of which require tools like NetSurveyor. Therefore, NetSurveyor is the most appropriate and exam-aligned tool for this scenario

According to theCHFI v11 Malware Forensics and Malware Analysis objectives, dynamic malware analysis must be performed in acontrolled, isolated, and well-monitored environmentto both observe malicious behavior and prevent unintended spread to production systems. A key requirement of such an environment is the ability tomonitor and record all system-level changesmade by the malware during execution.

Host Integrity Monitoring (HIM)plays a critical role in dynamic malware analysis by tracking modifications tofiles, registry keys, services, processes, startup locations, system calls, and configuration settings. CHFI v11 emphasizes system behavior analysis as a core component of malware forensics, including monitoring registry artifacts, file system changes, persistence mechanisms, and process activity. HIM enables investigators to safely analyze malware impact while maintaining forensic visibility and containment.

The other options are not aligned with CHFI v11 best practices.Disabling antivirus softwareweakens security controls but does not ensure containment or safety.Running malware on physical machinesincreases the risk of permanent damage and network propagation, which contradicts CHFI guidelines favoring sandboxed or virtualized environments.Using outdated operating systemsdoes not contribute to safety and may introduce irrelevant vulnerabilities.

CHFI v11 strongly advocatescontrolled malware analysis labswith monitoring mechanisms that capture behavioral indicators without exposing production assets. Therefore, implementinghost integrity monitoringis a key design aspect that supports bothsafe containment and effective behavioral analysis, makingOption Athe correct and CHFI-verified answer.

This question maps directly to CHFI v11 objectives underData Acquisition and DuplicationandData Acquisition Formats. CHFI v11 clearly explains that theRAW (dd) image formatis the most widely used and universally supported forensic image format. RAW images are exact bit-by-bit copies of storage media and do not rely on proprietary structures, compression, or vendor-specific software. This makes them ideal when investigators require maximum compatibility across multiple forensic tools and platforms.

The RAW format is simple, uncompressed, and transparent, allowing it to be analyzed by nearly all forensic suites such as Autopsy, FTK, EnCase, and The Sleuth Kit. CHFI v11 emphasizes that RAW images are preferred when long-term accessibility, court admissibility, and tool independence are critical requirements.

AFF and AFF4 formats provide advanced features such as metadata storage and compression, but they require specific tool support and are not as universally accessible. Proprietary formats are discouraged because they limit interoperability and may introduce legal or technical constraints. Therefore, adopting the RAW format best satisfies the requirement for simplicity, broad compatibility, and forensic soundness as defined in CHFI v11 standards.

This question aligns directly with CHFI v11 objectives underComputer Forensics FundamentalsandLog Analysis. Log files are among the most critical forensic artifacts because they provide achronological and authoritative record of system, security, and application events. CHFI v11 emphasizes that logs are essential for reconstructing attack timelines, identifying unauthorized access attempts, and determining the scope of a compromise.

Artifacts such asfailed sign-in attempts,security policy modifications,IDS alerts, andapplication errorsare routinely recorded in log sources including Windows Security logs, system logs, application logs, firewall logs, and IDS/IPS logs. These logs allow investigators to correlate events across systems, identify brute-force attacks, detect privilege escalation, and recognize abnormal behavior caused by malware or misconfiguration.

Cryptographic artifacts focus on key usage and encryption operations, browser artifacts relate to user web activity, and process or memory artifacts provide insight into live execution states—but none provide thecomprehensive, event-based historical visibilityrequired to answer all aspects of the question. CHFI v11 highlights log analysis as the primary method for understandingwhat happened, when it happened, how it happened, and who was involved. Therefore,log file anomaliesare the most relevant and reliable forensic artifacts in this scenario.

According to theCHFI v11 Forensic Investigation Process and Event Correlation objectives, the forensic technique that enables investigators toreconstruct the sequence of events and determine the root cause of an incidentisdata analysis. Data analysis is the phase where collected evidence is examined, correlated, and interpreted to extract meaningful insights about attacker behavior.

During data analysis, investigators examine logs, timestamps, file system metadata, registry entries, network traffic, memory artifacts, and security alerts to performtimeline analysis,event correlation, andkill chain reconstruction. CHFI v11 explicitly highlights techniques such astimeline creation, event deconfliction, and correlation analysisas essential for identifying thetime of attack,vulnerabilities exploited,methods used, andactions performed by the attacker.

The other options represent different forensic phases but do not directly achieve the stated goal.Data acquisitionfocuses on collecting evidence in a forensically sound manner, not interpreting it.Data duplicationinvolves creating forensic copies to preserve evidence integrity.Photographing the crime sceneapplies primarily to physical forensics and documentation, not digital event reconstruction.

CHFI v11 emphasizes that without properdata analysis, raw evidence remains unstructured and cannot support attribution, root cause analysis, or legal prosecution. Therefore, to uncover the complete sequence of malicious activities and generate an accurate incident timeline,Data analysisis the most effective forensic technique.

Hence, the correct and CHFI-verified answer isOption C.

According to theCHFI v11 Operating System ForensicsandDigital Evidence Analysisobjectives,The Sleuth Kit (TSK)is a core open-source forensic framework used to analyzedisk images and file systems, including NTFS, FAT, EXT, and others. TSK is designed as amodular toolkit, offering bothcommand-line utilities(such as fsstat, fls, and istat) and aplug-in frameworkthat enables structured, extensible analysis.

Thefsstattool is part of this framework and is used to extractfile system metadata, including cluster size, inode structure, allocation status, and volume layout—key artifacts required for timeline reconstruction and anomaly detection. CHFI v11 emphasizes that investigators typically analyze disk images usingTSK’s plug-in–based architecture, which allows multiple forensic modules to operate consistently on the same evidence source without altering it. This architecture is also what enables higher-level forensic platforms (such as Autopsy) to integrate TSK seamlessly.

The other options are incorrect. TSK does not performnetwork scans, nor does it rely on unstructuredmanual inspection. While TSK provides APIs for developers,writing custom codeis not required for standard disk image analysis and is not the primary method emphasized in CHFI v11.

Therefore, in alignment with CHFI v11, an investigator analyzes disk images using TSKthrough its plug-in framework, makingOption Cthe correct answer.

According to theCHFI v11 Operating System Forensicsmodule, the Windowspagefile.sysis a critical forensic artifact because it serves as virtual memory and may contain remnants of sensitive data such as credentials, command history, decrypted content, fragments of documents, and even portions of malicious code that were previously resident in RAM. As a result, understanding where pagefile-related configuration data is stored in the Windows Registry is essential for forensic investigators.

The registry path

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management

is the correct location where Windows stores configuration values related tovirtual memory management, including thePagingFilesvalue. This value specifies the location, size, and behavior of the pagefile.sys on the system. CHFI v11 explicitly references this registry key when discussingmemory artifacts, virtual memory analysis, and Windows memory forensics.

The other options are not relevant to pagefile analysis. TheCurrentVersionkey stores OS version details,ControlSet001\Control\Windowscontains general system control settings, andActiveComputerNameonly identifies the system hostname. None of these paths contain pagefile configuration data.

Therefore, to extract and validate artifacts related topagefile.sys, Investigator Sarah must examine

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management, makingOption Dthe correct and CHFI v11–verified answer.

According to theCHFI v11 Cloud Forensicsdomain, one of the most significant challenges in cloud-based investigations isdata residency and multi-jurisdictional storage. Cloud service providers often distribute customer data acrossmultiple geographic regions and countriesfor redundancy, performance optimization, and availability. As a result, evidence relevant to a single investigation may reside indifferent legal jurisdictions, each governed by its own data protection laws, privacy regulations, and disclosure requirements.

In the given scenario, the investigator has already obtained the necessary legal authorizations, which rules out lack of legal understanding as the primary issue. However, despite these approvals,accessing data spread across multiple jurisdictions introduces procedural delays, coordination challenges with cloud service providers, and dependencies on international legal frameworks. CHFI v11 explicitly highlights thatcross-border data accessis a major obstacle in cloud forensics, often slowing investigations even when warrants and mutual legal assistance mechanisms are in place.

While volatility of logs and forensic readiness are valid cloud challenges, the scenario emphasizesdelays caused by geographic and jurisdictional dispersion of data, not data loss or lack of preparation. CHFI v11 stresses that investigators must plan forjurisdictional complexity, sovereignty issues, and provider cooperation timelineswhen handling cloud-hosted evidence.

Therefore, the primary challenge faced by the investigator isdata storage in multiple jurisdictions leading to issues in accessing evidence, makingOption Dthe correct and CHFI v11–verified answer.

According to the CHFI v11 objectives underEmail ForensicsandDigital Evidence Analysis, investigators must be capable of extracting, recovering, and analyzing email data stored in proprietary formats such asMicrosoft Outlook PST files. PST files often contain emails from Inbox, Sent Items, Trash, and Archive folders, and may includedeleted or corrupted messagesthat are highly relevant to an investigation.

SysTools MailPro+is a forensic-grade email analysis tool designed specifically to handlePST file processing and recovery. It allows investigators to open, parse, and analyze PST files while recovering deleted emails, attachments, and metadata such as headers, timestamps, sender/recipient details, and message paths. CHFI v11 emphasizes the importance of using tools that supportevidence integrity, selective extraction, and comprehensive visibilityinto email contents, all of which are core capabilities of MailPro+.

The other options are not suitable for this task. P2LOCATION's Email Header Tracer focuses on tracing email headers for routing analysis, not PST recovery. Email Dossier and Hunter’s Email Verifier are OSINT and email validation tools used for profiling and verification, not forensic extraction or recovery of mailbox data.

The CHFI Exam Blueprint v4 highlightsemail evidence acquisition, deleted email recovery, and PST analysisas key forensic competencies. Therefore,SysTools MailPro+is the most appropriate and exam-aligned tool for this investigation

According to theCHFI v11 Procedures and Methodologydomain,evidence preservationis a critical step in the forensic investigation process and is closely tied to maintaining aproper chain of custody. Preservation ensures that digital evidence remainsunaltered, authentic, and legally admissiblefrom the moment it is collected until it is presented in court or a disciplinary proceeding.

In the given scenario, the investigator isdocumenting every action, assigningunique identifiers, and maintaining achain of custody logthat records who handled the evidence, when it was handled, and for what purpose. CHFI v11 explicitly defines these actions as part of theevidence preservation phase, which occurs immediately after evidence identification and collection. This phase is designed to prevent evidence tampering, loss, contamination, or misidentification.

The other options do not align with the described activities.Scopingfocuses on defining investigation boundaries,data analysisinvolves examining evidence for findings, andsearch and seizurerefers to the legal act of collecting evidence—none of which emphasize documentation and custody tracking.

CHFI v11 stresses that failure to properly preserve evidence and document its handling can result inevidence being challenged or ruled inadmissible. Therefore, the investigator’s actions clearly correspond topreserving the evidence, makingOption Athe correct and CHFI v11–verified answer.