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

Censys is a powerful Internet-wide scanning tool that allows users to:

Discover and analyze devices and services exposed to the public internet

Enumerate connected IoT devices, open ports, software versions

Provide structured and searchable reports for vulnerability analysis

According to CEH v13:

Censys continuously scans the IPv4 address space and maintains up-to-date databases of connected devices and their metadata.

Incorrect Options:

B. Wapiti is a web application vulnerability scanner.

C. NeuVector is a container security solution.

D. Lacework is a cloud workload protection platform, not focused on IoT enumeration.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 18: IoT and OT Hacking

Section: “IoT Discovery Tools”

Tool Focus: Censys, Shodan

===========

In CEH v13 Module 04: Enumeration and Module 06: Malware Threats, when investigating Command-and-Control (C2) communication, it is important to determine whether the communication actually occurred and what data was sent.

C. Internet Firewall/Proxy log

Best source to confirm outbound connections to external IPs.

Proxy logs show which internal host made the connection, the timestamp, and sometimes even URL and payload.

Firewalls can indicate port usage, traffic volume, and connection duration.

This data gives a direct view of how severe the incident is, whether data exfiltration occurred, and which internal system is affected.

Why Other Options Are Less Effective Initially:

A. IDS Log: Only tells you that an alert was generated. May be false positive or triggered by a failed connection.

B. Event logs on Domain Controller: Useful for user account behavior, but not for network connections.

D. Event logs on the PC: May lack detail or be tampered with by malware.

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.

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.”

In CEH v13 Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance, the OSINT Framework is introduced as a collection of free, open-source tools and resources to aid ethical hackers in passive reconnaissance.

Key Features of OSINT Framework:

Web-based visual tool that maps out links to open-source intelligence tools.

Allows collection of emails, domains, usernames, IPs, social media data, and more.

Focuses on passive footprinting to avoid detection.

Option Clarification:

A. WebSploit Framework: Used for man-in-the-middle attacks and web vulnerabilities.

B. Browser Exploitation Framework (BeEF): Browser-focused attack tool.

C. OSINT Framework: Correct — open-source intelligence and reconnaissance.

D. SpeedPhish Framework: Phishing simulation tool, not used for passive information gathering.

Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) provides virtualized computing infrastructure over the internet. In this model:

The cloud provider supplies the hardware (servers, storage, networking).

The client (your organization) is responsible for installing and managing the OS, applications, and all configurations.

This aligns with the question, where the organization must take full responsibility for maintenance.

Incorrect Options:

A. PaaS offers managed OS, middleware, and runtime, reducing customer responsibilities.

B. SaaS provides fully managed applications—users only access features.

C. Functions as a Service (FaaS) offers event-driven computing without server management, used in serverless environments.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 19: Cloud Computing

Section: “Cloud Service Models”

Table: “Responsibilities in IaaS vs PaaS vs SaaS”

===========

A NULL scan is a type of TCP scan where no TCP flags are set in the packet. This unconventional packet is used to evade firewalls and intrusion detection systems and to determine the state of a port based on the response.

Behavior:

Open port → No response

Closed port → RST (Reset)

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 3: Scanning Networks

Topic: TCP Flag Scanning Methods

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A NULL scan sends a TCP packet with all flags turned off. The system’s response (or lack thereof) allows the attacker to infer whether a port is open or closed, especially on UNIX-based systems.”

Incorrect Options:

B: Vague and inaccurate

C: Refers to Xmas scan (URG, PSH, FIN)

D/E: Irrelevant to TCP flags

Dynamic ARP inspection (DAI) protects switching devices against Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) packet spoofing (also known as ARP poisoning or ARP cache poisoning).

DAI inspects ARPs on the LAN and uses the information in the DHCP snooping database on the switch to validate ARP packets and to protect against ARP spoofing. ARP requests and replies are compared against entries in the DHCP snooping database, and filtering decisions are made based on the results of those comparisons. When an attacker tries to use a forged ARP packet to spoof an address, the switch compares the address with entries in the database. If the media access control (MAC) address or IP address in the ARP packet does not match a valid entry in the DHCP snooping database, the packet is dropped.

A hybrid encryption system is a system that combines the advantages of both asymmetric and symmetric encryption algorithms. Asymmetric encryption, such as RSA, uses a pair of keys: a public key and a private key, which are mathematically related but not identical. Asymmetric encryption can provide key exchange, authentication, and non-repudiation, but it is slower and less efficient than symmetric encryption. Symmetric encryption, such as AES, uses a single key to encrypt and decrypt data. Symmetric encryption is faster and more efficient than asymmetric encryption, but it requires a secure way to share the key.

In a hybrid encryption system, RSA encryption is used for key exchange, and AES encryption is used for data encryption. This way, the system can benefit from the security of RSA and the speed of AES. However, the system also depends on the key sizes of both algorithms, which affect the security and performance of the system.

The key size of RSA encryption determines the number of bits in the public and private keys. The larger the key size, the more secure the encryption, but also the slower the key generation and encryption/decryption processes. The time complexity of generating an RSA key pair is O(n*2), where n is the key size in bits. This means that the time required to generate an RSA key pair increases quadratically with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to generate a 1024-bit RSA key pair, it will take 4 seconds to generate a 2048-bit RSA key pair, and 16 seconds to generate a 4096-bit RSA key pair.

The key size of AES encryption determines the number of bits in the symmetric key. The larger the key size, the more secure the encryption, but also the more rounds of encryption/decryption are needed. The time complexity of AES encryption is O(n), where n is the key size in bits. This means that the time required to encrypt/decrypt data increases linearly with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to encrypt/decrypt data with a 128-bit AES key, it will take 2 seconds to encrypt/decrypt data with a 256-bit AES key, and 4 seconds to encrypt/decrypt data with a 512-bit AES key.

An attacker has developed a quantum algorithm with time complexity O((log n)*2) to crack RSA encryption. This means that the time required to break RSA encryption decreases exponentially with the key size. For example, if it takes 1 second to break a 1024-bit RSA encryption, it will take 0.25 seconds to break a 2048-bit RSA encryption, and 0.0625 seconds to break a 4096-bit RSA encryption. This makes RSA encryption vulnerable to quantum attacks, unless the key size is very large.

Given n=4000 and variable AES key size, the scenario that is likely to provide the best balance of security and performance is C. AES key size=192 bits. This configuration is a compromise between options A and B, providing moderate security and performance. Option A, AES key size=128 bits, provides less security than option C, but RSA key generation and AES encryption will be faster. Option B, AES key size=256 bits, provides more security than option C, but RSA key generation may be slow. Option D, AES key size=512 bits, provides the highest level of security, but at a significant performance cost due to the large AES key size.

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

Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) is a networking protocol that provides centralized authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) management for users who connect and use a network service.

RADIUS is a client/server protocol that runs in the application layer, and can use either TCP or UDP. Network access servers, which control access to a network, usually contain a RADIUS client component that communicates with the RADIUS server. RADIUS is often the back-end of choice for 802.1X authentication. A RADIUS server is usually a background process running on UNIX or Microsoft Windows.

Authentication and authorization

The user or machine sends a request to a Network Access Server (NAS) to gain access to a particular network resource using access credentials. The credentials are passed to the NAS device via the link-layer protocol—for example, Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) in the case of many dialup or DSL providers or posted in an HTTPS secure web form.

In turn, the NAS sends a RADIUS Access Request message to the RADIUS server, requesting authorization to grant access via the RADIUS protocol.

This request includes access credentials, typically in the form of username and password or security certificate provided by the user. Additionally, the request may contain other information which the NAS knows about the user, such as its network address or phone number, and information regarding the user's physical point of attachment to the NAS.

The RADIUS server checks that the information is correct using authentication schemes such as PAP, CHAP or EAP. The user's proof of identification is verified, along with, optionally, other information related to the request, such as the user's network address or phone number, account status, and specific network service access privileges. Historically, RADIUS servers checked the user's information against a locally stored flat-file database. Modern RADIUS servers can do this or can refer to external sources—commonly SQL, Kerberos, LDAP, or Active Directory servers—to verify the user's credentials.

The RADIUS server then returns one of three responses to the NAS:

1) Access-Reject,

2) Access-Challenge,

3) Access-Accept.

Access-Reject

The user is unconditionally denied access to all requested network resources. Reasons may include failure to provide proof of identification or an unknown or inactive user account.

Access-Challenge

Requests additional information from the user such as a secondary password, PIN, token, or card. Access-Challenge is also used in more complex authentication dialogs where a secure tunnel is established between the user machine and the Radius Server in a way that the access credentials are hidden from the NAS.

Access-Accept

The user is granted access. Once the user is authenticated, the RADIUS server will often check that the user is authorized to use the network service requested. A given user may be allowed to use a company's wireless network, but not its VPN service, for example. Again, this information may be stored locally on the RADIUS server or may be looked up in an external source such as LDAP or Active Directory.

CEH v13 explains that reflected XSS occurs when malicious input supplied by an attacker is immediately returned in the HTTP response without sanitization. This type of XSS is typically exploited through a crafted URL containing embedded JavaScript payloads. When a victim clicks the link, the vulnerable server reflects the injected script back to the browser, executing it within the user’s session context. CEH emphasizes that reflected XSS relies on social engineering to deliver the payload, often via links sent through email, messaging platforms, or compromised pages. The goal may include stealing session cookies, redirecting users, or manipulating page content. Brute-forcing credentials (Option A) has no relation to XSS. SQL injection (Option C) targets backend databases, not client-side script execution. Directory traversal (Option D) concerns file path manipulation, not dynamic script injection. Therefore, embedding a malicious script in a URL is the correct method to exploit reflected XSS.

NIST Special Publication 800-53 provides a catalog of security and privacy controls for all U.S. federal information systems except those related to national security. It is published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. NIST develops and issues standards, guidelines, and other publications to assist federal agencies in implementing the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) and to help with managing cost-effective programs to protect their information and information systems.

CEH v13 details the standard penetration testing workflow, where confirmed critical vulnerabilities—especially those affecting core systems like database servers—should be prioritized for exploitation only after verification and when explicitly permitted by the rules of engagement. Exploiting a known vulnerability using vetted tools (e.g., Metasploit, CVE-specific exploits) provides evidence of real-world risk and validates the severity rating. Brute-forcing logins (Option B) is inefficient and often outside scope. Ignoring a critical vulnerability (Option C) violates CEH’s prioritization guidelines. A DoS attack (Option D) is never appropriate unless the engagement explicitly authorizes destructive testing, which is rare. CEH stresses that high-impact vulnerabilities should be exploited to demonstrate business risk, privilege escalation potential, data exposure, or lateral movement possibilities—making Option A fully aligned with CEH methodology.

Firewalls primarily operate at Layer 3 (Network) and Layer 4 (Transport) of the OSI model. They inspect:

IP headers (Layer 3)

TCP/UDP port numbers (Layer 4)

Application-specific data in Layer 7-aware firewalls (for application filtering)

By examining transport layer port numbers and application layer headers, firewalls can block or allow traffic based on services like HTTP (port 80), FTP (port 21), and others.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 13: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots

Quote:

“Firewalls filter traffic based on IP addresses, transport-layer port numbers, and application protocol headers to control access to services and applications.”

Incorrect Options:

B & C. Presentation and session layers are not relevant to firewall rule inspection.

D. Application layer doesn’t have port numbers; they are part of the transport layer.

===========

CEH v13 identifies Slowloris as a low-bandwidth yet highly effective application-layer DoS technique that works by opening many HTTP connections and sending headers very slowly, never completing the request. Because the server must maintain these half-open HTTP sessions, its connection pool becomes saturated, preventing it from servicing legitimate users. Slowloris is particularly dangerous because it does not rely on malformed packets, high traffic volume, or protocol abuses; instead, it mimics legitimate HTTP behavior, making it difficult for firewalls or IDS systems to distinguish malicious traffic. This aligns exactly with the described scenario, where thousands of legitimate-looking HTTP connections are gradually consuming server resources. Fragmentation attacks (Option B) target packet reconstruction, UDP floods (Option C) generate high-bandwidth noise, and SYN floods (Option D) impact the TCP handshake layer, not the HTTP header behavior. Slowloris’ unique use of slow HTTP headers directly matches the symptoms described.

The CEH v13 courseware states that insecure communication occurs when mobile applications transmit sensitive data over unencrypted or weakly encrypted channels, exposing information to interception. When an application uses plain HTTP or does not properly validate certificates, attackers can place themselves between the client and server using a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack. This allows them to read session tokens, credentials, API keys, or personal user data as it travels across the network. CEH materials emphasize that MitM attacks are the primary exploitation technique for insecure data transmission because they exploit weaknesses in transport-layer security rather than weaknesses in backend code or authentication mechanisms. SQL injection and CSRF attacks target web application logic, not transport encryption. Brute-force attacks target authentication mechanisms and are unrelated to how data is transmitted. Therefore, the most effective exploitation method is intercepting traffic via MitM to capture or manipulate unencrypted communications.

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.

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

===========

WPA2-Enterprise networks authenticate clients through 802.1X using a RADIUS server. A common attack method described in CEH training is to create an evil-twin access point broadcasting the same SSID as the legitimate one. Combined with de-authentication frames, clients are forced off the real AP and automatically reconnect to the stronger rogue AP. This allows the attacker to capture authentication exchanges for later misuse, including credential harvesting or EAP-based downgrade attacks.

When standard protections such as HTTPS, HTTP-only flags, and session regeneration are properly implemented, CEH teaches that predictable session identifiers become one of the few remaining avenues for session hijacking. Session token prediction involves analyzing entropy, randomness, or generation patterns within session IDs to mathematically infer future or valid tokens. If the application uses weak randomization algorithms, insufficient entropy sources, or predictable sequences, attackers may generate a valid session ID without direct interception. Techniques such as MitM interception or CSRF manipulation do not bypass strong transport-layer protections and cookie restrictions. Session fixation fails because the application regenerates the session ID upon login, invalidating pre-set identifiers. Therefore, the advanced and CEH-aligned method to hijack a protected session is predicting session IDs through side-channel or pattern analysis.