Free ECCouncil 312-50v13 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 4

18 U.S.C. §1030, also known as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), is a broad federal statute that criminalizes unauthorized access to computers and related fraudulent activities—including phishing and email scams.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Topic: U.S. Laws Related to Cybercrime

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Email-based frauds such as phishing, spoofing, and other social engineering attacks fall under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030), which criminalizes unauthorized access and fraudulent behavior in computing systems.”

Incorrect Options:

B: Relates to credit cards and access devices.

C: Covers interference with government communication systems.

D: Covers illegal wiretapping and eavesdropping.

Restrict results to those of a certain filetype. E.g., PDF, DOCX, TXT, PPT, etc. Note: The “ext:” operator can also be used—the results are identical.

Example: apple filetype:pdf / apple ext:pdf

A white hat (or a white hat hacker) is an ethical computer hacker, or a computer security expert, who focuses on penetration testing and in other testing methodologies that ensures the safety of an organization’s information systems. Ethical hacking may be a term meant to imply a broader category than simply penetration testing. Contrasted with black hat, a malicious hacker, the name comes from Western films, where heroic and antagonistic cowboys might traditionally wear a white and a black hat respectively. While a white hat hacker hacks under good intentions with permission, and a black hat hacker, most frequently unauthorized, has malicious intent, there’s a 3rd kind referred to as a gray hat hacker who hacks with good intentions but sometimes without permission.

White hat hackers can also add teams called “sneakers and/or hacker clubs”,red teams, or tiger teams.

While penetration testing concentrates on attacking software and computer systems from the beginning – scanning ports, examining known defects in protocols and applications running on the system and patch installations, as an example – ethical hacking may include other things. A full-blown ethical hack might include emailing staff to invite password details, searching through executive’s dustbins and typically breaking and entering, without the knowledge and consent of the targets. Only the owners, CEOs and Board Members (stake holders) who asked for such a censoring of this magnitude are aware. to undertake to duplicate a number of the destructive techniques a true attack might employ, ethical hackers may arrange for cloned test systems, or organize a hack late in the dark while systems are less critical. In most up-to-date cases these hacks perpetuate for the long-term con (days, if not weeks, of long-term human infiltration into an organization). Some examples include leaving USB/flash key drives with hidden auto-start software during a public area as if someone lost the tiny drive and an unsuspecting employee found it and took it.

Some other methods of completing these include:

• DoS attacks

• Social engineering tactics

• Reverse engineering

• Network security

• Disk and memory forensics

• Vulnerability research

• Security scanners such as:

– W3af

– Nessus

– Burp suite

• Frameworks such as:

– Metasploit

• Training Platforms

These methods identify and exploit known security vulnerabilities and plan to evade security to realize entry into secured areas. they’re ready to do that by hiding software and system ‘back-doors’ which will be used as a link to information or access that a non-ethical hacker, also referred to as ‘black-hat’ or ‘grey-hat’, might want to succeed in .

CEH v13 explains that Windows systems running older or default configurations often allow anonymous or null session connections to IPC$ shares, enabling attackers to enumerate users, groups, shares, and other system details without authentication. Null session enumeration is highlighted as a classic yet effective technique because it generates minimal detectable activity and does not require credentials, making it ideal for stealth operations. CEH stresses that SMB null sessions are frequently overlooked in legacy or poorly hardened environments, especially when default permissions remain unchanged. Packet sniffing (Option A) may provide some data but requires traffic visibility and may be detected through monitoring tools. DNS zone transfers (Option B) require misconfigurations and usually do not reveal user list details. SNMP queries (Option D) require community strings and often generate alerts. Therefore, exploiting null sessions is the most covert and effective method for enumerating Windows systems under default configurations.

White-hat hackers perform security assessments with authorization. CEH defines ethical hacking as legal, structured testing of network defenses with the goal of improving security rather than causing harm.

According to CEH v13 Module 06: Malware Threats, when analyzing suspicious system behavior or investigating a suspected Trojan infection, a common and effective approach is to:

Monitor system activity and network behavior using tools like netstat, Wireshark, and TCPView.

Trojans often create covert channels or backdoors for remote access, which can be identified through unexpected or unauthorized outgoing connections to remote IP addresses or domains.

Using netstat -an or netstat -ano helps identify open ports and active connections, and checking these against known IPs can indicate whether a Trojan is communicating with a Command and Control (C&C) server.

Analysis of Each Option:

A. Use ExifTool and check for malicious content

Incorrect. ExifTool is primarily used for extracting metadata from files, especially images and documents. It is not effective for analyzing executable malware or system behavior post-execution.

B. You do not check; rather, you immediately restore a previous snapshot of the operating system

Incorrect. While restoring from a snapshot might eventually be required, immediate restoration without diagnosis is not a recommended or forensically sound first step. It also prevents root cause analysis.

C. Upload the file to VirusTotal

Partially correct but not sufficient. While uploading the file to VirusTotal is a good step to confirm if the file is known malware, it does not identify whether the machine is currently infected or actively compromised.

D. Use netstat and check for outgoing connections to strange IP addresses or domains

Correct. This method helps detect if the system is making suspicious external connections that are common in Trojan infections.

Reference from CEH v13 Study Guide and Course Materials:

CEH v13 Official Module 06 – Malware Threats, Section: Types of Malware – Trojans, and System Monitoring Tools

CEH v13 eCourseware Lab Manual: "Detecting Trojan Activity using netstat and TCPView"

CEH Engage Range: Malware Investigation Phase – Trojan Behavior Detection

CEH v13 distinguishes between vertical and horizontal privilege escalation. Vertical escalation occurs when an attacker moves upward in the hierarchy of privileges—such as from a regular user to an administrator or root—by exploiting vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, or insecure privilege boundaries. This allows the attacker to perform tasks that were previously restricted, such as modifying system settings, accessing sensitive data, installing malware, or controlling the entire environment. Horizontal escalation, on the other hand, involves accessing another user’s resources at the same privilege level, which the other options describe. Exploiting unquoted service paths or weak access controls may facilitate privilege abuse, but they do not inherently elevate the user to a higher privilege tier unless they specifically lead to administrative execution. The scenario that aligns perfectly with the CEH definition of vertical privilege escalation is the escalation from regular user to administrator.

Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) devices are internet-connected medical devices that can collect, transfer, and analyze data over a network. They can provide improved patient care and comfort, but they also pose security challenges and risks, as they can be targeted by cyberattacks, such as ransomware, that can compromise their functionality, integrity, or confidentiality. Ransomware is a type of malware that encrypts the victim’s data or system and demands a ransom for its decryption or restoration. Ransomware attacks can cause serious harm to healthcare organizations, as they can disrupt their operations, endanger their patients, and damage their reputation.

To protect IoMT devices from ransomware attacks, the main recommendation is to use network segmentation to isolate IoMT devices from the main network. Network segmentation is a technique that divides a network into smaller subnetworks, each with its own security policies and controls. Network segmentation can prevent or limit the spread of ransomware from one subnetwork to another, as it restricts the communication and access between them. Network segmentation can also improve the performance, visibility, and manageability of the network, as it reduces the network congestion, complexity, and noise.

The other options are not as effective or feasible as network segmentation. Implementing multi-factor authentication for all IoMT devices may not be possible or practical, as some IoMT devices may not support or require user authentication, such as sensors or monitors. Disabling all wireless connectivity on IoMT devices may not be desirable or realistic, as some IoMT devices rely on wireless communication protocols, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or Zigbee, to function or transmit data. Regularly changing the IP addresses of all IoMT devices may not prevent or deter ransomware attacks, as ransomware can target devices based on other factors, such as their domain names, MAC addresses, or vulnerabilities. References:

What Is Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) Security?

5 Steps to Secure Internet of Medical Things Devices

Ransomware in Healthcare: How to Protect Your Organization

[Network Segmentation: Definition, Benefits, and Best Practices]

DNS spoofing (also known as DNS cache poisoning) occurs when an attacker intercepts or falsifies DNS responses to redirect traffic or exfiltrate data. The appropriate way to prevent such attacks includes:

Implementing DNS anti-spoofing techniques

Using DNSSEC (DNS Security Extensions)

Ensuring proper DNS configurations and validation of responses

From CEH v13:

Module 3: Scanning Networks

Topic: DNS Poisoning and Spoofing Attacks

Defensive Measures: DNS Hardening

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“To prevent DNS spoofing and cache poisoning, organizations should use DNSSEC, configure anti-spoofing protections, and restrict zone transfers. DNS Anti-spoofing solutions validate responses and ensure data integrity.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Logging may detect but not prevent.

B: Disabling DNS timeouts is unrelated and harmful.

D: Prevents zone transfers, not spoofing specifically.

CEH v13 states that vulnerabilities with a CVSS score ≥ 9.0 are critical and require immediate containment. When remote code execution is possible, the system may already be compromised.

The recommended response is to isolate the affected system, preventing lateral movement, then perform a forensic audit before applying patches. Immediate patching without isolation may alert attackers or destroy evidence.

Thus, option D aligns with CEH incident response best practices.

The CEH Footprinting and Reconnaissance module highlights Google Alerts as a key passive reconnaissance tool for monitoring changes in web content, news, and online mentions.

Option B is correct.

Option A is active engagement.

Option C aids anonymity but not monitoring.

Option D is illegal and unethical.

CEH strongly promotes automated alerting for competitive intelligence.

This scenario clearly aligns with a Pulse Wave DDoS attack, a sophisticated denial-of-service technique described in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking. Unlike traditional volumetric DDoS attacks that rely on sustained flooding, pulse wave attacks deliver short, extremely high-volume bursts of traffic, followed by periods of inactivity.

The defining characteristics described—intermittent spikes exceeding 300 Gbps, regular intervals (every 10 minutes), and temporary recovery—are hallmark indicators of pulse wave attacks. CEH v13 explains that attackers use this method to overwhelm server resources, trigger auto-scaling failures, exhaust mitigation thresholds, and evade detection systems that rely on sustained traffic baselines.

Option A is incorrect because UDP floods are continuous. Option B (HTTP GET flood) targets the application layer with sustained requests. Option C (PDoS) permanently damages hardware, which does not match the recurring pattern.

Pulse wave attacks are particularly effective against large platforms like streaming services because they:

Exploit elasticity limits of cloud infrastructure

Confuse rate-based detection systems

Cause repeated service degradation without long attack durations

CEH v13 emphasizes that pulse wave attacks are difficult to mitigate without adaptive, behavior-based DDoS protection. Therefore, Option D is the correct and CEH-aligned answer.

The CEH Web Application Hacking module identifies Session Fixation as a powerful session management attack that can bypass advanced authentication controls, including MFA.

In session fixation, the attacker forces the victim to authenticate using a session ID already known to the attacker. Once authentication completes, the attacker hijacks the valid session without needing credentials.

Option A directly targets session management logic.

Option B exploits authorization logic, not session handling.

Option C is unrelated to session management.

Option D is mitigated by encrypted cookies and HTTPS.

CEH explicitly warns that applications must regenerate session IDs after authentication.

Firewalk, covered in CEH v13 Module 03, is a firewall analysis tool that uses TTL-limited probes to determine which ports are allowed through a filtering device (firewall/router).

If a Time-to-Live Exceeded message is received, it means the packet made it past the firewall and was stopped before reaching the target host.

No response typically means filtered or blocked.

Therefore:

Ports 21 and 22 are filtered by the firewall.

Port 23 triggered a TTL Exceeded, meaning it passed through the firewall, and likely hit a router or was dropped due to TTL=0 before reaching the host.

This scenario strongly suggests a race condition attack in the application’s token validation logic, as described in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking. A race condition occurs when an application processes multiple requests simultaneously and fails to properly synchronize validation checks.

The presence of multiple failed attempts using expired tokens followed by successful access within a short time window indicates the attacker exploited a timing flaw. During this window, the system may have inconsistently validated token expiration, allowing an expired token to be accepted.

Option A is unlikely because the logs specifically reference expired tokens. Option B is incorrect because replaying expired tokens should fail unless a validation flaw exists. Option C is highly improbable due to token entropy.

CEH v13 highlights race conditions as advanced logic flaws that are difficult to detect and often missed during standard testing. They are commonly exploited in authentication, payment processing, and session management systems.

Therefore, Option D is the correct and CEH-aligned answer.

According to CEH v13 Security Operations and Incident Response, the first step in incident handling is identification and analysis, not immediate containment or remediation. The observed sequence—failed logins followed by abnormal outbound traffic—suggests a potential compromise, but the exact nature, scope, and impact are still unknown.

Option C aligns precisely with CEH v13’s incident response lifecycle. Real-time monitoring and detailed log analysis allow the analyst to determine whether the activity represents credential stuffing, brute-force compromise, malware-based exfiltration, or a false positive. This step preserves evidence, establishes timelines, and helps identify indicators of compromise (IOCs).

Immediately disconnecting the server (Option B) may be necessary later, but doing so prematurely can destroy volatile forensic evidence, disrupt business operations, and alert the attacker. Auditing outbound traffic alone (Option A) is too narrow and skips proper correlation of authentication logs, system logs, and process activity. Forcing credential changes (Option D) without understanding the attack vector may fail to stop malware-based persistence.

CEH v13 emphasizes that containment actions must be informed by analysis, otherwise organizations risk responding to symptoms rather than root causes. Therefore, the correct initial action is to observe, analyze, and identify, making Option C the correct answer.

Without documented approval, the firewall rule could represent an unauthorized change or security risk. Rolling it back until proper change control processes are followed is consistent with best practices in security governance.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

"Unauthorized changes to security devices should be immediately reviewed and reverted until formal approval is obtained."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

There is no single, standardized classification of cross-site scripting flaws, but most experts distinguish between at least two primary flavors of XSS flaws: non-persistent and persistent. In this issue, we consider the non-persistent cross-site scripting vulnerability.

The non-persistent (or reflected) cross-site scripting vulnerability is by far the most basic type of web vulnerability. These holes show up when the data provided by a web client, most commonly in HTTP query parameters (e.g. HTML form submission), is used immediately by server-side scripts to parse and display a page of results for and to that user, without properly sanitizing the content.

Because HTML documents have a flat, serial structure that mixes control statements, formatting, and the actual content, any non-validated user-supplied data included in the resulting page without proper HTML encoding, may lead to markup injection. A classic example of a potential vector is a site search engine: if one searches for a string, the search string will typically be redisplayed verbatim on the result page to indicate what was searched for. If this response does not properly escape or reject HTML control characters, a cross-site scripting flaw will ensue.

The TTL (Time-To-Live) and TCP window size are commonly used values for passive OS fingerprinting. Different operating systems set default values for these fields in IP and TCP headers.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware and tools like Nmap and Netcraft:

A TTL of 64 and TCP window size of 5840 is a strong indicator of a Linux-based operating system.

This combination is one of the signature responses used in tools such as Nmap and p0f to fingerprint OS remotely.

Here’s a general reference table:

OS

Default TTL

TCP Window Size

Windows

128

8192/65535

Linux

64

5840

Solaris

255

8760

Mac OS

64

65535

Therefore, TTL: 64 + Window Size: 5840 = Linux OS

Incorrect Options:

A. Solaris typically has a TTL of 255 and a different window size.

B. Windows defaults to TTL 128.

C. Mac OS uses TTL 64 but has a window size of 65535.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 03: Scanning Networks

Section: “OS Detection Using TTL and TCP Window Size”

Tools: Nmap OS Fingerprinting, Xprobe2

CEH iLab: OS Fingerprinting with TCP/IP Stack Behavior

=

CEH v13 highlights the Idle Scan as one of the stealthiest reconnaissance methods available, designed specifically to avoid detection by IDS and security monitoring tools. Idle scanning leverages a “zombie host”—a system with a predictable IPID sequence—to route all probe packets through it. Since no packets ever originate directly from the attacker’s IP, IDS systems are unable to attribute the port scan to the attacker. CEH emphasizes that this technique creates zero direct traffic between the attacker and the target, making it extremely evasive and ideal for highly monitored networks. FIN scans (Option A) are somewhat stealthy but still originate from the attacker and are detectable. TCP Connect scans (Option C) are the most detectable because they complete full connections. ICMP Echo scans (Option D) are easily logged and flagged by IDS. Idle scanning is uniquely suited for bypassing advanced detection systems while still identifying open ports and live hosts.