Free ECCouncil 312-50v13 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

This question shows a classic example of an IDOR vulnerability. Rob substitutes Ned's name in the "name" parameter and if the developer has not fixed this vulnerability, then Rob will gain access to Ned's account. Below you will find more detailed information about IDOR vulnerability.

Insecure direct object references (IDOR) are a cybersecurity issue that occurs when a web application developer uses an identifier for direct access to an internal implementation object but provides no additional access control and/or authorization checks. For example, an IDOR vulnerability would happen if the URL of a transaction could be changed through client-side user input to show unauthorized data of another transaction.

Most web applications use simple IDs to reference objects. For example, a user in a database will usually be referred to via the user ID. The same user ID is the primary key to the database column containing user information and is generated automatically. The database key generation algorithm is very simple: it usually uses the next available integer. The same database ID generation mechanisms are used for all other types of database records.

The approach described above is legitimate but not recommended because it could enable the attacker to enumerate all users. If it’s necessary to maintain this approach, the developer must at least make absolutely sure that more than just a reference is needed to access resources. For example, let’s say that the web application displays transaction details using the following URL:

https://www.example.com/transaction.php?id=74656

A malicious hacker could try to substitute the id parameter value 74656 with other similar values, for example:

https://www.example.com/transaction.php?id=74657

The 74657 transaction could be a valid transaction belonging to another user. The malicious hacker should not be authorized to see it. However, if the developer made an error, the attacker would see this transaction and hence we would have an insecure direct object reference vulnerability.

CEH explains that SQL injection testing should begin with controlled, intentional manipulation of SQL syntax to determine whether user input is improperly concatenated into backend queries. While destructive queries like DROP TABLE are not recommended in real-world ethical hacking engagements, CEH uses this example as a conceptual demonstration of how SQLi can influence database commands. In practice, a penetration tester would more safely use benign tautologies such as ' OR '1'='1 to test whether unauthorized data is returned. However, within CEH’s theoretical framing, injecting a clearly malicious SQL command demonstrates whether the input is executed at the database level. This validates improper sanitization, the use of dynamic SQL queries, and missing parameterized input handling. CEH stresses that SQLi is among the most critical vulnerabilities because it allows attackers to bypass authentication, exfiltrate data, or manipulate the database structure. XSS, brute-forcing, and directory traversal do not test SQL query manipulation and therefore do not confirm SQL injection.

CEH covers classical cryptanalytic attacks, including linear cryptanalysis, which uses statistical correlations between plaintext and ciphertext to infer bits of the secret key. If a cipher leaks structural patterns across many data samples, linear approximations can be computed to break the cipher.

In CEH v13 Module 17: Mobile and IoT Security, Spearphone is defined as a privacy-intrusion attack that:

Exploits a smartphone’s speaker output, particularly when loudspeaker mode is used.

Leverages motion sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) through a malicious app to capture acoustic signals emitted during:

Phone calls

Voice assistant interactions

Media playback

This enables attackers to extract private speech content without needing microphone access.

Option Clarification:

A. Man-in-the-disk: Exploits unprotected external storage in Android.

B. aLTEr: Exploits LTE protocol weaknesses; unrelated to loudspeaker eavesdropping.

C. SIM card attack: Targets SIM-level vulnerabilities (e.g., SIMjacker).

D. Spearphone: Correct — exploits loudspeaker emissions and motion sensors.

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.

Well-known and widely used password-cracking tools include:

A. L0phtcrack – Windows password auditing tool that can crack LM and NTLM hashes.

E. John the Ripper – Versatile password cracker that supports many hash types on Unix, Windows, etc.

Incorrect Options:

B. NetCat – A network tool used for port scanning and data transfer.

C. “Jack the Ripper” is likely a mistaken reference to John the Ripper.

D. Netbus – A remote access Trojan, not a password cracker.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Password Cracking Tools

TCP Maimon scan

This scan technique is very similar to NULL, FIN, and Xmas scan, but the probe used here is

FIN/ACK. In most cases, to determine if the port is open or closed, the RST packet should be generated as a response to a probe request. However, in many BSD systems, the port is open if the packet gets dropped in response to a probe.

https://nmap.org/book/scan-methods-maimon-scan.html

How Nmap interprets responses to a Maimon scan probe

Probe Response Assigned State

No response received (even after retransmissions) open|filtered

TCP RST packet closed

ICMP unreachable error (type 3, code 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, or 13) filtered

Public-key cryptography, or asymmetric cryptography, is a cryptographic system that uses pairs of keys: public keys (which may be known to others), and private keys (which may never be known by any except the owner). The generation of such key pairs depends on cryptographic algorithms which are based on mathematical problems termed one-way functions. Effective security requires keeping the private key private; the public key can be openly distributed without compromising security.

In such a system, any person can encrypt a message using the intended receiver's public key, but that encrypted message can only be decrypted with the receiver's private key. This allows, for instance, a server program to generate a cryptographic key intended for a suitable symmetric-key cryptography, then to use a client's openly-shared public key to encrypt that newly generated symmetric key. The server can then send this encrypted symmetric key over an insecure channel to the client; only the client can decrypt it using the client's private key (which pairs with the public key used by the server to encrypt the message). With the client and server both having the same symmetric key, they can safely use symmetric key encryption (likely much faster) to communicate over otherwise-insecure channels. This scheme has the advantage of not having to manually pre-share symmetric keys (a fundamentally difficult problem) while gaining the higher data throughput advantage of symmetric-key cryptography.

With public-key cryptography, robust authentication is also possible. A sender can combine a message with a private key to create a short digital signature on the message. Anyone with the sender's corresponding public key can combine that message with a claimed digital signature; if the signature matches the message, the origin of the message is verified (i.e., it must have been made by the owner of the corresponding private key).

Public key algorithms are fundamental security primitives in modern cryptosystems, including applications and protocols which offer assurance of the confidentiality, authenticity and non-repudiability of electronic communications and data storage. They underpin numerous Internet standards, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS), S/MIME, PGP, and GPG. Some public key algorithms provide key distribution and secrecy (e.g., Diffie–Hellman key exchange), some provide digital signatures (e.g., Digital Signature Algorithm), and some provide both (e.g., RSA). Compared to symmetric encryption, asymmetric encryption is rather slower than good symmetric encryption, too slow for many purposes. Today's cryptosystems (such as TLS, Secure Shell) use both symmetric encryption and asymmetric encryption.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From CEH v13 Guide:

Grey-box testing is a hybrid method where the tester has partial knowledge of the internal workings of the system, allowing for a more focused and efficient assessment of security vulnerabilities compared to black-box (no knowledge) and white-box (full knowledge). This approach simulates an insider threat or a user with limited access rights.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 15: Hacking Web Applications – Types of Penetration Testing

“Gray-box testing assumes partial knowledge of internal structures, combining elements of both black-box and white-box testing.”

=============================================================

L0phtCrack is a password auditing and recovery tool. It can:

Capture password hashes over the network (e.g., via SMB).

Crack password hashes using dictionary, brute-force, or hybrid attacks.

It’s particularly effective when used on SMB-based challenge-response authentication (NTLM/LM) captured via packet sniffing.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Module 6: Malware Threats

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“L0phtCrack can sniff SMB authentication exchanges from network traffic and extract NTLM password hashes to crack them offline.”

Incorrect Options:

A: This is possible (hence A is wrong).

B: Netbus is a backdoor/trojan tool.

C: NTFSDOS is used to read NTFS partitions under DOS, not for password cracking.

https://blog.mailfence.com/how-do-digital-signatures-work/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature

A digital signature is a mathematical technique used to validate the authenticity and integrity of a message, software, or digital document. It's the digital equivalent of a handwritten signature or stamped seal, but it offers far more inherent security. A digital signature is intended to solve the problem of tampering and impersonation in digital communications.

Digital signatures can provide evidence of origin, identity, and status of electronic documents, transactions, or digital messages. Signers can also use them to acknowledge informed consent.

Digital signatures are based on public-key cryptography, also known as asymmetric cryptography. Two keys are generated using a public key algorithm, such as RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adleman), creating a mathematically linked pair of keys, one private and one public.

Digital signatures work through public-key cryptography's two mutually authenticating cryptographic keys. The individual who creates the digital signature uses a private key to encrypt signature-related data, while the only way to decrypt that data is with the signer's public key.

ARP Spoofing Attack ARP packets can be forged to send data to the attacker’s machine.Attackers flood a target computer’s ARP cache with forged entries, which is also known as poisoning. (P.1143/1127)

PKI uses public-key cryptography, which is widely used on the Internet to encrypt messages or

authenticate message senders. In public-key cryptography, a CA generates public and private

keys with the same algorithm simultaneously. The private key is held only by the subject (user,

company, or system) mentioned in the certificate, while the public key is made publicly available

in a directory that all parties can access. The subject keeps the private key secret and uses it to

decrypt the text encrypted by someone else using the corresponding public key (available in a

public directory). Thus, others encrypt messages for the user with the user's public key, and the user decrypts it with his/her private key.

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

A Collision attack is a type of cryptographic attack that targets the hash function. The goal of this attack is to find two different inputs that produce the same hash output. This undermines the integrity of the hashing algorithm, as hash functions are expected to produce a unique output for each unique input.

In practical terms, if two different documents (inputs) produce the same hash value (collision), an attacker can replace a legitimate file with a malicious one without detection, assuming the system validates integrity only via the hash.

CEH v13 defines a collision attack as follows:

"A collision attack focuses on finding two different messages (M1 and M2) that produce the same hash value. This can compromise digital signatures, certificates, and other security protocols."

Reference – CEH v13 Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography, Section: “Hashing Algorithms and Attacks”, Subsection: “Collision Attacks”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A: Public keys are part of asymmetric encryption, not relevant to collisions.

B/C: These are incorrect descriptions; collision attacks are not about breaking hashes into parts to retrieve plaintext or private keys.

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒