Pass the ECCouncil CEH v13 312-50v13 Questions and answers with Dumpstech

Active Online Attacks: Hash Injection/Pass-the-Hash (PtH) Attack A hash injection/PtH attack allows an attacker to inject a compromised hash into a local session and use the hash to validate network resources The attacker finds and extracts a logged-on domain admin account hash The attacker uses the extracted hash to log on to the domain controller

This scenario describes Living-off-the-Land (LotL) malware techniques, where attackers modify or abuse legitimate system binaries and services to evade detection. CEH v13 identifies this as a highly stealthy persistence mechanism commonly used in advanced persistent threats (APTs).

The most effective countermeasure is file integrity monitoring (FIM), specifically by tracking cryptographic hashes of critical system executables. CEH v13 emphasizes that monitoring file hashes enables early detection of unauthorized modifications to binaries such as PowerShell, cmd.exe, or Windows services.

Backups (Option A) aid recovery but do not prevent or detect compromise. Antivirus updates (Option C) often fail against modified legitimate tools. Firewall hardening (Option D) reduces attack surface but does not detect tampering of trusted binaries.

CEH v13 explicitly recommends hash-based integrity verification as a core defense against stealthy persistence mechanisms. Therefore, option B is correct.

DNS uses Ports 53 which is almost always open on systems, firewalls, and clients to transmit DNS queries. instead of the more familiar Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) these queries use User Datagram Protocol (UDP) due to its low-latency, bandwidth and resource usage compared TCP-equivalent queries. UDP has no error or flow-control capabilities, nor does it have any integrity checking to make sure the info arrived intact.

How is internet use (browsing, apps, chat etc) so reliable then? If the UDP DNS query fails (it’s a best-effort protocol after all) within the first instance, most systems will retry variety of times and only after multiple failures, potentially switch to TCP before trying again; TCP is additionally used if the DNS query exceeds the restrictions of the UDP datagram size – typically 512 bytes for DNS but can depend upon system settings.

Figure 1 below illustrates the essential process of how DNS operates: the client sends a question string (for example, mail.google[.]com during this case) with a particular type – typically A for a number address. I’ve skipped the part whereby intermediate DNS systems may need to establish where ‘.com’ exists, before checking out where ‘google[.]com’ are often found, and so on.

Many worms and scanners are created to seek out and exploit systems running telnet. Given these facts, it’s really no surprise that telnet is usually seen on the highest Ten Target Ports list. Several of the vulnerabilities of telnet are fixed. They require only an upgrade to the foremost current version of the telnet Daemon or OS upgrade. As is usually the case, this upgrade has not been performed on variety of devices. this might flow from to the very fact that a lot of systems administrators and users don’t fully understand the risks involved using telnet. Unfortunately, the sole solution for a few of telnets vulnerabilities is to completely discontinue its use. the well-liked method of mitigating all of telnets vulnerabilities is replacing it with alternate protocols like ssh. Ssh is capable of providing many of an equivalent functions as telnet and a number of other additional services typical handled by other protocols like FTP and Xwindows. Ssh does still have several drawbacks to beat before it can completely replace telnet. it’s typically only supported on newer equipment. It requires processor and memory resources to perform the info encryption and decryption. It also requires greater bandwidth than telnet thanks to the encryption of the info . This paper was written to assist clarify how dangerous the utilization of telnet are often and to supply solutions to alleviate the main known threats so as to enhance the general security of the web

Once a reputation is resolved to an IP caching also helps: the resolved name-to-IP is usually cached on the local system (and possibly on intermediate DNS servers) for a period of your time . Subsequent queries for an equivalent name from an equivalent client then don’t leave the local system until said cache expires. Of course, once the IP address of the remote service is understood , applications can use that information to enable other TCP-based protocols, like HTTP, to try to to their actual work, for instance ensuring internet cat GIFs are often reliably shared together with your colleagues.

So, beat all, a couple of dozen extra UDP DNS queries from an organization’s network would be fairly inconspicuous and will leave a malicious payload to beacon bent an adversary; commands could even be received to the requesting application for processing with little difficulty.

A service-based solution offered by an auditing firm would be the most appropriate type of vulnerability assessment solution for the large e-commerce organization, given their requirements. A service-based solution is a type of vulnerability assessment that is performed by external experts who have the skills, tools, and experience to conduct a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the target system or network. A service-based solution can imitate the outside view of attackers, as the experts are not familiar with the internal details or configurations of the organization. A service-based solution can also perform well-organized inference-based testing, which is a type of testing that uses logical reasoning and deduction to identify and exploit vulnerabilities based on the information gathered from the target. A service-based solution can scan automatically against continuously updated databases, as the experts have access to the latest security intelligence and threat feeds. A service-based solution can also support multiple networks, as the experts can use different techniques and tools to scan different types of networks, such as wired, wireless, cloud, or hybrid12.

The other options are not as appropriate as option B for the following reasons:

A. Inference-based assessment solution: This option is not a type of vulnerability assessment solution, but a type of testing method that can be used by any solution. Inference-based testing is a testing method that uses logical reasoning and deduction to identify and exploit vulnerabilities based on the information gathered from the target. Inference-based testing can be performed by service-based, product-based, or tree-based solutions, depending on the scope, objectives, and resources of the assessment3.

C. Tree-based assessment approach: This option is not a type of vulnerability assessment solution, but a type of testing method that can be used by any solution. Tree-based testing is a testing method that uses a hierarchical structure to organize and prioritize the vulnerabilities based on their severity, impact, and exploitability. Tree-based testing can be performed by service-based, product-based, or inference-based solutions, depending on the scope, objectives, and resources of the assessment4.

D. Product-based solution installed on a private network: This option is a type of vulnerability assessment solution, but it may not meet all the requirements of the large e-commerce organization. A product-based solution is a type of vulnerability assessment that is performed by using software or hardware tools that are installed on the organization’s own network. A product-based solution can scan automatically against continuously updated databases, as the tools can be configured to download and apply the latest security updates and patches. However, a product-based solution may not imitate the outside view of attackers, as the tools may have limited access or visibility to the external network or the internet. A product-based solution may also not perform well-organized inference-based testing, as the tools may rely on predefined rules or signatures to detect and report vulnerabilities, rather than using logical reasoning and deduction. A product-based solution may also not support multiple networks, as the tools may be designed or optimized for a specific type of network, such as wired, wireless, cloud, or hybrid .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kismet_(software)

Kismet is a network detector, packet sniffer, and intrusion detection system for 802.11 wireless LANs. Kismet will work with any wireless card which supports raw monitoring mode, and can sniff 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g, and 802.11n traffic.

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.

To perform a thorough password assessment, Bob can use:

Hardware Keyloggers: Installed between the keyboard and computer; captures keystrokes.

Software Keyloggers: Installed on the OS; logs keystrokes and system activity.

Network Sniffing: Captures plaintext passwords from unencrypted protocols (e.g., FTP, Telnet).

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 8: Sniffing

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A comprehensive password audit can involve passive sniffing of credentials on the wire, software keyloggers for direct input capture, and hardware keyloggers for stealthy physical surveillance.”

Incorrect Options:

B, C, D: Limiting to just one method misses out on broader techniques.

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

The Metasploit Project is a computer security project that provides information about security vulnerabilities and aids in penetration testing and IDS signature development. It is owned by Boston, Massachusetts-based security company Rapid7.

Its best-known sub-project is the open-source Metasploit Framework, a tool for developing and executing exploit code against a remote target machine. Other important sub-projects include the Opcode Database, shellcode archive and related research.

The Metasploit Project includes anti-forensic and evasion tools, some of which are built into the Metasploit Framework. Metasploit is pre-installed in the Kali Linux operating system.

The basic steps for exploiting a system using the Framework include.

1. Optionally checking whether the intended target system is vulnerable to an exploit.

2. Choosing and configuring an exploit (code that enters a target system by taking advantage of one of its bugs; about 900 different exploits for Windows, Unix/Linux and macOS systems are included).

3. Choosing and configuring a payload (code that will be executed on the target system upon successful entry; for instance, a remote shell or a VNC server). Metasploit often recommends a payload that should work.

4. Choosing the encoding technique so that hexadecimal opcodes known as "bad characters" are removed from the payload, these characters will cause the exploit to fail.

5. Executing the exploit.

This modular approach – allowing the combination of any exploit with any payload – is the major advantage of the Framework. It facilitates the tasks of attackers, exploit writers and payload writers.

To start the Computer Management Console from command line just type compmgmt.msc /computer:computername in your run box or at the command line and it should automatically open the Computer Management console.

Operational Technology and ICS environments often suffer from misconfigurations such as unchanged factory-default passwords. CEH identifies exploiting default credentials as a direct and effective method because ICS devices frequently lack strong authentication controls. Using these built-in credentials grants immediate unauthorized access to supervisory controls, enabling adversaries to manipulate configurations, disrupt processes, or escalate attacks across critical systems.

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.

In CEH v13 Module 04: Enumeration, identifying services based on well-known port numbers is foundational for enumeration and scanning activities.

Port 21/TCP is assigned to the File Transfer Protocol (FTP).

FTP is a standard protocol used to upload, download, and manage files on a remote server.

During enumeration, open FTP ports can be probed for:

Anonymous login

Banner grabbing

Directory traversal vulnerabilities

Option Clarification:

A. BGP: Runs on TCP port 179.

C. NFS: Commonly uses port 2049.

D. RPC: Dynamically uses multiple ports.

Correct answer is B. FTP (port 21).

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.

CEH v13 discusses various credential extraction and authentication abuse techniques, including approaches that avoid LSASS memory due to modern protections like Credential Guard. The Internal Monologue technique is a specialized credential-harvesting approach that leverages the Windows SSPI authentication stack to coerce the local system into generating NetNTLM challenge-response hashes without requiring direct access to LSASS. This allows attackers to obtain legitimate NTLM responses entirely within the user’s security context. These captured responses can then be cracked offline using tools such as Hashcat. Unlike replay attacks (Option B), Internal Monologue is not about reusing captured traffic. Hash injection (Option C) requires possession of NT hashes and modifies authentication tokens, which does not occur here. Pass-the-ticket (Option D) targets Kerberos, not NTLM. Therefore, the correct technique is the Internal Monologue attack.

In CEH v13 DNS Enumeration, DNS cache snooping determines whether a DNS resolver has a record cached. When +norecurse is used and the response is NOERROR with no answer, it means the server is authoritative but does not have the record cached.

CEH v13 explains that this suggests no internal client has recently queried the domain, making option D correct.

In the context of security testing, test automation plays a critical role in improving the speed and consistency of testing activities. However, it cannot entirely replace manual testing because certain security vulnerabilities—especially logic flaws or issues with session management—often require human intuition and contextual understanding.

According to CEH v13 Official Courseware – Module 05 (Vulnerability Analysis), and confirmed in the CEH v13 Study Guide, automated testing is best suited for:

Repetitive benchmark tests

Regression testing

Scanning for known vulnerabilities

Ensuring consistency across environments

However, manual testing is still essential for:

Business logic testing

Security misconfiguration identification

Discovering zero-day flaws

These tools are all Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack tools that coordinate large numbers of systems (bots) to flood target networks or services:

Trinoo – UDP flood-based DDoS tool

TFN2k (Tribe Flood Network 2000) – Supports ICMP, SYN, and other attack types

WinTrinoo – Windows variant of Trinoo

Stacheldraht – Combines features of Trinoo and TFN with encryption and auto-updating

T-Sight – DDoS control tool

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 9: Denial-of-Service Attacks

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“These tools are classic examples of distributed DoS platforms used by attackers to launch coordinated flood attacks using compromised hosts.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Not all tools were developed by the same group.

B: Not typically used by defenders.

D/E: These tools are cross-platform (some run on Linux, others on Windows).

According to the Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) System Hacking and Session Hijacking module, sidejacking is a form of session hijacking where an attacker passively intercepts network traffic to capture unencrypted session cookies. These cookies are then reused to impersonate the authenticated user without needing credentials.

CEH documentation explains that sidejacking commonly occurs on unencrypted HTTP connections, public Wi-Fi networks, or improperly secured internal networks. Once the session cookie is stolen, the attacker can replay it to gain access to the victim’s active session.

Option B correctly describes this mechanism and directly matches CEH’s definition of sidejacking.

Option A refers to perimeter exploitation, not session hijacking.

Option C describes social engineering, which is unrelated to sidejacking.

Option D is an example of cross-site scripting (XSS), not sidejacking.

CEH emphasizes HTTPS enforcement and secure cookie attributes as key countermeasures.

When partial root access exists, preventing further privilege abuse is the immediate priority. CEH v13 explains that Mobile Application Management (MAM) enforces granular access control, application isolation, and permission enforcement—even on compromised devices.

Secure coding (Option A) and testing (Option C) are preventative measures but do not contain an active compromise. Certificate pinning (Option B) protects communications, not application control.

MAM solutions allow administrators to revoke access, enforce policies, and isolate apps, limiting attacker capabilities post-compromise. Therefore, Option D is correct.

According to the CEH attack methodology, once an attacker obtains initial access—whether through exploitation, misconfiguration, or credential compromise—the next critical phase is privilege escalation. Gaining system-level or administrative control is essential for maintaining persistence, accessing protected data, modifying system configurations, and pivoting further into the network. Privilege escalation exploits target kernel flaws, misconfigured services, improper permission settings, or vulnerable drivers. CEH emphasizes that performing a DoS attack disrupts the engagement and provides no strategic advantage. Similarly, CSRF targets web applications rather than operating systems, and brute-force password attempts are inefficient, noisy, and often ineffective once local access has already been established. By leveraging privilege escalation techniques, the tester converts limited user access into full system control, enabling comprehensive post-exploitation activities aligned with CEH system hacking procedures.