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

CEH training emphasizes that highly tailored social engineering attacks—those exploiting trust in internal workflows and perceived technical authority—are far more effective than generic or mass-distributed phishing attempts. A fake IT support portal that mirrors internal systems leverages procedural familiarity: IT departments commonly instruct employees to log into support portals for troubleshooting, credential verification, or ticket updates. When the attacker enhances the pretext with insider terminology and references to real internal systems, employees are more likely to trust the portal and enter credentials. CEH highlights that successful social engineering attacks mimic legitimate processes to avoid suspicion. Phone calls posing as executives often introduce risk due to real-time interaction and scrutiny. Generic phishing lacks personalization and is easily detected. Physical impersonation introduces operational risk and may not yield credentials. Therefore, a fake IT support portal aligned with IT workflows is the optimal method.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Non-repudiation ensures that a sender cannot deny having sent a message. This is typically achieved through digital signatures or logs which verify the origin and integrity of communications.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 10: Cryptography → Security Services

“Non-repudiation prevents entities from denying their actions, such as sending emails or digital transactions.”

To block NetBIOS and related Windows networking traffic from traversing a firewall (especially from external sources), you should block the following ports:

Port 135 (TCP/UDP): Microsoft RPC endpoint mapper (DCOM/RPC)

Port 139 (TCP): NetBIOS Session Service

Port 445 (TCP): Direct-hosted SMB over TCP/IP (Windows 2000+)

These ports are commonly used for:

File sharing

RPC-based communication

Windows network services

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks

Module 4: Enumeration

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“To prevent external enumeration, remote file sharing, and NetBIOS attacks, administrators should block inbound access to ports 135, 139, and 445 on the firewall.”

Incorrect Options:

A (110): POP3 mail service

D (161): SNMP

F (1024): High ephemeral port; not specific to NetBIOS

Split DNS (also known as Split-Horizon DNS) is a configuration where internal users and external users receive different DNS responses. Typically, one DNS server resides in the DMZ for public access, and another is inside the network for internal name resolution.

???? Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide, Module 9: System Hacking / Perimeter Security

“Split DNS allows different DNS records to be presented based on whether the requester is from inside or outside the organization’s network.”

❌ Incorrect options:

A. DynDNS is a dynamic DNS provider.

B. DNS Scheme is a non-standard term.

C. DNSSEC is a security extension for DNS, not a deployment model.

A Slow HTTP POST attack is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that exploits the way web servers handle HTTP requests. The attacker sends a legitimate HTTP POST header to the web server, specifying a large amount of data to be sent in the request body. However, the attacker then sends the data very slowly, keeping the connection open and occupying the server’s resources. The attacker can launch multiple such connections, exceeding the server’s capacity to handle concurrent requests and preventing legitimate users from accessing the web server.

The attack duration D is given by the formula D = a * b, where a is the number of connections and b is the hold-up time per connection. The attacker intends to maximize D by manipulating a and b. The server can manage m connections per second, but any connections exceeding m will overwhelm the system. Therefore, the scenario that is most likely to result in the longest duration of server unavailability is the one where a > m and b is the largest. Among the four options, this is the case for option B, where a = 100, m = 90, and b = 15. In this scenario, D = 100 * 15 = 1500 seconds, which is the longest among the four options. Option A has a larger b, but a < m, so the server can handle the connections without being overwhelmed. Option C has a > m, but a smaller b, so the attack duration is shorter. Option D has a > m, but a smaller b and a smaller difference between a and m, so the attack duration is also shorter. 

https://www.eccouncil.org/what-is-social-engineering/

This Social Engineering scam involves an exchange of information that can benefit both the victim and the trickster. Scammers would make the prey believe that a fair exchange will be present between both sides, but in reality, only the fraudster stands to benefit, leaving the victim hanging on to nothing. An example of a Quid Pro Quo is a scammer pretending to be an IT support technician. The con artist asks for the login credentials of the company’s computer saying that the company is going to receive technical support in return. Once the victim has provided the credentials, the scammer now has control over the company’s computer and may possibly load malware or steal personal information that can be a motive to commit identity theft.

"A quid pro quo attack (aka something for something” attack) is a variant of baiting. Instead of baiting a target with the promise of a good, a quid pro quo attack promises a service or a benefit based on the execution of a specific action." https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/topic/common-social-engineering-attacks/#:~:text=A%20quid%20pro%20quo%20attack,execution%20of%20a%20specific%20action.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Script Kiddies are individuals with minimal technical skills who use existing tools or scripts developed by others to perform attacks. They generally do not understand the underlying mechanisms and rely on publicly available hacking tools.

From CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking → Hacker Types

“Script kiddies are unskilled attackers who use tools created by others.”

https://github.com/verovaleros/bluedriving

Bluedriving is a bluetooth wardriving utility. It can capture bluetooth devices, lookup their services, get GPS information and present everything in a nice web page. It can search for and show a lot of information about the device, the GPS address and the historic location of devices on a map. The main motivation of this tool is to research about the targeted surveillance of people by means of its cellular phone or car. With this tool you can capture information about bluetooth devices and show, on a map, the points where you have seen the same device in the past.

Probing the IPC share by attempting to brute force admin credentials is the most appropriate technique for this scenario, because it can reveal valuable information about the target system, such as its operating system, services, users, groups, and shares. An IPC share is a special share that allows processes to communicate with each other over the network using named pipes. An IPC share can be accessed anonymously or with valid credentials, depending on the security configuration of the target system. A brute force attack is a method of trying different combinations of usernames and passwords until a valid pair is found. By using a brute force attack, the tester can try to access the IPC share with admin credentials, which can grant them more privileges and access to more resources on the target system.

The other options are less suitable or effective techniques for this scenario. Brute forcing Active Directory may not be relevant or feasible, as the target system may not be part of a domain or may have strong password policies. Extracting usernames using email IDs may not provide enough information or access to the target system, as email IDs may not match the usernames or passwords. Conducting a DNS zone transfer may not be possible or useful, as the target system may not be a DNS server or may have restricted zone transfers. A DNS zone transfer is a method of obtaining information about the domain names and IP addresses of the hosts in a network by querying a DNS server. References:

Inter-process communication - Wikipedia

IPC$ share and null session behavior - Windows Server

Brute Force Attack: Definition, Examples, and Prevention

DNS Zone Transfer: Definition, Types, and Examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet-in-the-middle_attack

The meet-in-the-middle attack (MITM), a known plaintext attack, is a generic space–time tradeoff cryptographic attack against encryption schemes that rely on performing multiple encryption operations in sequence. The MITM attack is the primary reason why Double DES is not used and why a Triple DES key (168-bit) can be bruteforced by an attacker with 256 space and 2112 operations.

The intruder has to know some parts of plaintext and their ciphertexts. Using meet-in-the-middle attacks it is possible to break ciphers, which have two or more secret keys for multiple encryption using the same algorithm. For example, the 3DES cipher works in this way. Meet-in-the-middle attack was first presented by Diffie and Hellman for cryptanalysis of DES algorithm.

In CEH v13 Module 12: Hacking Web Applications, Burp Suite is introduced as a powerful proxy-based tool used for intercepting, modifying, and analyzing HTTP/S traffic between a client and a web application.

Key Features of Burp Suite:

Captures all HTTP requests and responses.

Allows for manual testing of input parameters, headers, and cookies.

Includes tools such as Intruder, Repeater, Scanner, and Decoder.

Helps detect vulnerabilities such as XSS, SQLi, CSRF, and insecure session handling.

Option Review:

A. Maskgen: Used for generating masks, not a web proxy.

B. Dimitry: A footprinting tool, not used for request/response testing.

C. Burpsuite: Correct. Designed for web application vulnerability analysis.

D. Proxychains: Used to chain proxies for anonymity, not for HTTP traffic analysis.

A counter-based authentication system is based on the HOTP (HMAC-Based One-Time Password) algorithm. It uses a shared secret and a moving counter to generate a one-time password (OTP). Each time the counter is incremented, a new OTP is generated and encrypted using the secret key.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 5: System Hacking

Quote:

“HOTP generates a one-time password using a counter value and a secret key. This is a form of two-factor authentication, and the passwords are encrypted.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A & B. These describe biometric systems, not counter-based OTPs.

D. Virtual passwords from passphrases are not counter-based systems.

===========

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The correct file name is /var/log/auth.log (not auth.fesg). “auth.fesg” is a typo or does not exist by default in Linux systems.

Linux login records include:

/var/log/auth.log – authentication logs

/var/log/wtmp – records login sessions

/var/log/btmp – records failed logins

/var/log/user.log – logs user-level messages (optional)

Therefore, B is not a valid log file.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: System Hacking → Covering Tracks in Linux

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

As we can see, we have an IP address of 10.1.4.0 with a subnet mask of /23. According to the question, we need to determine which IP address will be included in the range of the last 100 IP addresses.

The available addresses for hosts start with 10.1.4.1 and end with 10.1.5.254. Now you can clearly see that the last 100 addresses include the address 10.1.5.200.

The virus described changes its own code with each execution but still performs the same actions. This is the hallmark of a Metamorphic Virus. Unlike polymorphic viruses (which use encrypted code with a changing decryptor), metamorphic viruses rewrite their own code entirely — including their decryption and execution routines — to avoid pattern detection by antivirus software.

Key characteristics of metamorphic viruses seen in the scenario:

Mutates completely on every execution.

Keeps overall functionality identical (semantics intact).

Alters its appearance and logic flow.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Types of Viruses and Obfuscation Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Metamorphic viruses modify their own code structure and appearance with each iteration, without altering their underlying behavior. This makes them more difficult to detect through signature-based mechanisms.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Polymorphic viruses encrypt themselves with a changing decryptor stub but do not change their core logic.

C: “Dravidic Virus” is not a recognized term in cybersecurity.

D: Stealth viruses hide their presence (e.g., by intercepting system calls), but do not change their code structure.