Free ECCouncil 312-50v13 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 14

An iPhone client’s most noticeably terrible bad dream is to have somebody oversee his/her gadget, including the capacity to record and control all action without waiting be in a similar room. In this blog entry, we present another weakness called “Trustjacking”, which permits an aggressor to do precisely that.

This weakness misuses an iOS highlight called iTunes Wi-Fi sync, which permits a client to deal with their iOS gadget without genuinely interfacing it to their PC. A solitary tap by the iOS gadget proprietor when the two are associated with a similar organization permits an assailant to oversee the gadget. Furthermore, we will stroll through past related weaknesses and show the progressions that iPhone has made to alleviate them, and why these are adequately not to forestall comparative assaults.

After interfacing an iOS gadget to another PC, the clients are being found out if they trust the associated PC or not. Deciding to believe the PC permits it to speak with the iOS gadget by means of the standard iTunes APIs.

This permits the PC to get to the photographs on the gadget, perform reinforcement, introduce applications and considerably more, without requiring another affirmation from the client and with no recognizable sign. Besides, this permits enacting the “iTunes Wi-Fi sync” highlight, which makes it conceivable to proceed with this sort of correspondence with the gadget even after it has been detached from the PC, as long as the PC and the iOS gadget are associated with a similar organization. It is intriguing to take note of that empowering “iTunes Wi-Fi sync” doesn’t need the casualty’s endorsement and can be directed simply from the PC side.

Getting a live stream of the gadget’s screen should be possible effectively by consistently requesting screen captures and showing or recording them distantly.

It is imperative to take note of that other than the underlying single purpose of disappointment, approving the vindictive PC, there is no other component that forestalls this proceeded with access. Likewise, there isn’t anything that informs the clients that by approving the PC they permit admittance to their gadget even in the wake of detaching the USB link.

Implementing regular firmware updates for all IoT devices is the primary recommendation to prevent DDoS attacks on the smart city project. Firmware updates can fix security vulnerabilities, patch bugs, and improve performance of the IoT devices, making them less susceptible to malware infections and botnet recruitment12. Firmware updates can also enable new security features, such as encryption, authentication, and firewall, that can protect the IoT devices from unauthorized access and data theft3. Firmware updates should be done automatically or remotely, without requiring user intervention, to ensure timely and consistent security across the IoT network4.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as firmware updates for the following reasons:

B. Deploying network intrusion detection systems (IDS) across the IoT network can help detect and alert DDoS attacks, but not prevent them. IDS can monitor network traffic and identify malicious patterns, such as high volume, spoofed IP addresses, or unusual protocols, that indicate a DDoS attack5. However, IDS cannot block or mitigate the attack, and may even be overwhelmed by the flood of traffic, resulting in false positives or missed alerts. Moreover, deploying IDS across a vast network of IoT devices can be costly, complex, and resource-intensive, as it requires dedicated hardware, software, and personnel.

C. Establishing strong, unique passwords for each IoT device can prevent unauthorized access and brute-force attacks, but not DDoS attacks. Passwords can protect the IoT devices from being compromised by hackers who try to guess or crack the default or weak credentials. However, passwords cannot prevent DDoS attacks that exploit known or unknown vulnerabilities in the IoT devices, such as buffer overflows, command injections, or protocol flaws. Moreover, establishing and managing strong, unique passwords for each IoT device can be challenging and impractical, as it requires user awareness, memory, and effort.

D. Implementing IP address whitelisting for all IoT devices can restrict network access and communication to trusted sources, but not DDoS attacks. IP address whitelisting can filter out unwanted or malicious traffic by allowing only the predefined IP addresses to connect to the IoT devices. However, IP address whitelisting cannot prevent DDoS attacks that use spoofed or legitimate IP addresses, such as reflection or amplification attacks, that bypass the whitelisting rules. Moreover, implementing IP address whitelisting for all IoT devices can be difficult and risky, as it requires constant updating, testing, and monitoring of the whitelist, and may block legitimate or emergency traffic by mistake.

According to CEH v13 Module 09: Social Engineering, both pharming and phishing are forms of fraud that direct users to malicious websites. However, their techniques differ:

Pharming involves modifying DNS entries or the victim's host file to silently redirect users to a malicious site without needing user interaction.

Phishing involves sending links via emails or messages where the URL is visually deceptive (misspelled, similar domain names, homoglyph attacks).

“Boolean based” we mean that it is based on Boolean values, that is, true or false / true and false. AND Time-based SQL Injection is an inferential SQL Injection technique that relies on sending an SQL query to the database which forces the database to wait for a specified amount of time (in seconds) before responding. The response time will indicate to the attacker whether the result of the query is TRUE or FALSE.

Boolean-based (content-based) Blind SQLi

Boolean-based SQL Injection is an inferential SQL Injection technique that relies on sending an SQL query to the database which forces the application to return a different result depending on whether the query returns a TRUE or FALSE result.

Depending on the result, the content within the HTTP response will change, or remain the same. This allows an attacker to infer if the payload used returned true or false, even though no data from the database is returned. This attack is typically slow (especially on large databases) since an attacker would need to enumerate a database, character by character.

Time-based Blind SQLi

Time-based SQL Injection is an inferential SQL Injection technique that relies on sending an SQL query to the database which forces the database to wait for a specified amount of time (in seconds) before responding. The response time will indicate to the attacker whether the result of the query is TRUE or FALSE.

Depending on the result, an HTTP response will be returned with a delay, or returned immediately. This allows an attacker to infer if the payload used returned true or false, even though no data from the database is returned. This attack is typically slow (especially on large databases) since an attacker would need to enumerate a database character by character.

https://www.acunetix.com/websitesecurity/sql-injection2/

Telnetting into port 25 allows users to manually issue SMTP commands. While not necessarily malicious, it can be abused (e.g., for spamming or probing).

You don’t want to shut down SMTP (as that’s required for email), and you can’t block port 25 entirely. The best approach is to secure the service by requiring:

SMTP authentication (username/password)

Possibly TLS encryption

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 5: Vulnerability Analysis

Module 20: Secure Protocols

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“To prevent unauthorized SMTP access, require SMTP AUTH. This allows only authenticated users to send email, mitigating abuse of open mail relays.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Blocks all SMTP, affecting email functionality.

B: Disables mail service entirely.

D: Switching platforms doesn’t solve the underlying issue.

E: Not appropriate—there is a clear solution.

A digital certificate, issued by a trusted Certificate Authority (CA), binds a public key to the identity of an entity (e.g., user, organization). This provides a means to validate ownership of the public key.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 17: Cryptography

"A digital certificate ensures the authenticity of the public key through a trusted third party known as a Certificate Authority."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Docker uses a client-server design. The docker client talks to the docker daemon, that will the work of building, running, and distributing your docker containers. The docker client and daemon will run on the same system, otherwise you will connect a docker consumer to a remote docker daemon. The docker consumer and daemon communicate using a REST API, over OS sockets or a network interface.

The docker daemon (dockerd) listens for docker API requests and manages docker objects like pictures, containers, networks, and volumes. A daemon may communicate with other daemons to manage docker services.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) uses:

TCP/UDP port 389 for standard LDAP communication.

TCP/UDP port 636 for secure LDAP over SSL (LDAPS).

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks → Common Ports and Protocols

Incorrect Options:

A: Port 110 = POP3

C: Port 464 = Kerberos change/set password

D: Port 445 = SMB over TCP/IP (used for file sharing)

A SYN flood attack is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that exploits the TCP handshake process by sending a large number of SYN requests to the target server, without completing the connection. This consumes the connection state tables on the server, preventing it from accepting new connections. The attacker has crafted an automated botnet to simultaneously send ‘s’ SYN packets per second to the server. The server can handle ‘f’ SYN packets per second without any performance issues. If ‘s’ exceeds ‘f’, the network infrastructure begins to show signs of overload. The system’s response time increases exponentially (24k), where ‘k’ represents each additional SYN packet above the ‘f’ limit.

Considering ‘s=500’ and different ‘f’ values, the scenario that is most likely to cause the server to experience overload and significantly increased response times is the one where ‘f=420’. This is because ‘s’ is greater than ‘f’ by 80 packets per second, which means the server cannot handle the incoming traffic and will eventually run out of resources. The response time shoots up (2480 = 281,474,976,710,656 times the normal response time), indicating a system overload.

The other scenarios are less likely or less severe than the one where ‘f=420’. Option A has ‘f=510’, which is greater than ‘s’, so the system stays stable and the response time remains unaffected. Option B has ‘f=495’, which is less than ‘s’ by 5 packets per second, so the response time drastically rises (245 = 32 times the normal response time), indicating a probable system overload, but not as extreme as option D. Option C has ‘f=505’, which is less than ‘s’ by 5 packets per second, so the response time increases but not as drastically (245 = 32 times the normal response time), and the system might still function, albeit slowly. References:

SYN flood DDoS attack | Cloudflare

SYN flood - Wikipedia

What Is a SYN Flood Attack? | F5

What is a SYN flood attack and how to prevent it? | NETSCOUT

Analyze Web Applications: Identify Files and Directories - enumerate applications, as well as hidden directories and files of the web application hosted on the web server. Tools such as ☆Gobuster is directory scanner that allows attackers to perform fast-paced enumeration of hidden files and directories of a target web application. # gobuster -u -w common.txt (wordlist) (P.1849/1833)

Passive reconnaissance focuses on collecting information without directly touching or interacting with the target’s systems. CEH materials stress that any action that sends network traffic to the target—such as scanning, probing, fingerprinting, or enumeration—creates logs and increases the risk of detection. Email headers, however, are considered an excellent source of passive intelligence because they reveal internal IP structures, routing paths, mail server hostnames, internal domain formats, and technology stacks without requiring interaction with the target environment. Since these headers are already in the possession of the ethical hacker through legitimate communication records, examining them does not generate traffic or trigger monitoring systems. SSL certificates and WHOIS data provide valuable external information, but they rarely disclose internal addressing schemes. Active scanning tools, such as Nmap, would immediately violate the requirement to avoid detection. Therefore, analyzing previously received email headers is the most effective and covert method for extracting internal network details during the reconnaissance phase.

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.