212-89 ECCouncil EC Council Certified Incident Handler (ECIH v3) Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

Michael’s actions reflect crime scene control, a foundational first-response principle in the ECIH forensic readiness module. Securing the area, preventing unauthorized access, and avoiding system changes preserve evidence integrity.

Option C is correct because his primary objective is to secure and evaluate the digital crime scene before evidence collection begins. ECIH stresses that scene control prevents contamination, tampering, and accidental evidence destruction.

Options A, B, and D may follow but are not the immediate objective.

URL encoding, also known as percent-encoding, is a mechanism for encoding information in a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) under certain circumstances. This technique involves replacing unsafe ASCII characters with a "%" followed by two hexadecimal digits that represent the character's ASCII code. This is necessary for embedding characters that are not allowed in URLs directly, such as spaces and symbols, or characters that have special meanings within URLs, ensuring that the URL is correctly interpreted by web browsers and servers.

The term "broken account management" refers to vulnerabilities in the account management functions of web applications, which can weaken valid authentication schemes. This can include issues with how accounts are created, updated, managed, and deleted, as well as how users recover forgotten passwords or perform password resets. Poorly implemented account management functions can allow attackers to bypass authentication, elevate privileges, or assume the identity of another user. This weakness is a significant security concern because it directly impacts the ability of a system to safeguard user data and maintain operational integrity.

True attribution in the context of cyber incidents involves the identification of the actual individuals, groups, or entities behind an attack. This can include pinpointing specific persons, organizations, societies, or even countries that sponsor or carry out cyber intrusions or attacks. Alexis's efforts to identify and attribute the actors behind a recent attack by distinguishing the specific origins of the threat align with the concept of true attribution, which goes beyond mere speculation to provide concrete evidence about the perpetrators.

ECIH identifies insider threats as best mitigated through continuous behavioral and activity monitoring, not physical or invasive measures.

Option B is correct because employee monitoring tools can analyze access patterns, file movements, abnormal data transfers, and deviations from normal behavior. These tools provide early warning of malicious insider activity while remaining compliant with legal and privacy frameworks when properly implemented.

Options A, C, and D are ineffective, intrusive, or legally problematic and are explicitly discouraged by ECIH.

Behavioral monitoring allows organizations to detect insider threats proactively rather than reactively, making Option B the most effective control.

Once malware is identified, ECIH guidance requires responders to analyze before eradication to understand scope, infection vectors, persistence mechanisms, and data impact. This ensures effective removal and prevents reinfection.

Option C is correct because forensic analysis allows investigators to determine how the malware entered the system, what data was accessed, and whether additional components are compromised. Without this understanding, containment and recovery efforts may be incomplete or ineffective.

Option A is a containment step but does not address root cause. Option B is a notification step that must be supported by verified facts. Option D protects future data but does not address the active malware.

Therefore, forensic analysis is the ideal primary action following detection, as emphasized in the ECIH malware handling process.

The Volatility framework is a widely used tool for analyzing volatile memory (RAM) dumps. It is especially useful in digital forensics and malware analysis. One of the fundamental tasks in memory analysis is to list the processes that were running on the system at the time the memory dump was taken. Thepslistcommand in the Volatility framework serves this purpose by listing all processes from the process list in memory, which can provide valuable insights into what was happening on the system, including the presence of any malicious processes.

The syntax provided in the answer option corresponds to the usage of thepslistcommand with the Volatility tool, specifying the memory dump file to be analyzed (-f /root/Desktop/memdump.mem) and the profile of the system from which the dump was taken (--profile=Win2008SP1x86). This information is crucial for accurate analysis, as the profile helps Volatility interpret the memory structures correctly.

In the context of incident handling and response (IH&R), the preparation phase is the initial step where teams and resources are organized to effectively respond to potential security incidents. This phase involves building the IH&R team, developing incident response plans and policies, setting up communication channels, and ensuring that the team has the necessary tools and authority to act. James, being assigned to build an IH&R plan and organize his team, is engaging in the preparation step of the incident response process. This foundational step is crucial for ensuring a coordinated and efficient response to incidents when they occur.

The scenario described fits the characteristics of an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) attack. APTs are sophisticated, stealthy, and continuous computer hacking processes often orchestrated by groups targeting a specific entity. These attackers penetrate the network through vulnerabilities, maintain access without detection, and achieve their objectives, such as data exfiltration or financial theft, over an extended period. The fact that attackers exploited a minor vulnerability, maintained access for six months, and performed lateral movements to access critical systems for fraudulent transactions highlights the strategic planning and persistence typical of APT attacks.

The guideline that helps incident handlers to eradicate insider attacks by privileged users is to ensure accountability by not enabling default administrative accounts. Instead, organizations should require administrators and privileged users to use individual accounts that can be audited and traced back to specific actions and users. This practice enhances security by ensuring that all actions taken on the system can be attributed to individual users, reducing the risk of misuse of privileges and making it easier to identify the source of malicious activities or policy violations. The other options listed either present insecure practices or misunderstandings of security protocols that would not help in eradicating insider attacks.

This incident involves active data exfiltration, which ECIH malware handling guidance identifies as a critical containment priority. When malware is actively transmitting sensitive data, stopping the leak takes precedence over deep analysis.

Option B is correct because using the network traffic analyzer to identify and halt outbound malicious communication immediately prevents further data loss. ECIH stresses that containment actions must first stop harm before eradication and recovery.

Option A supports eradication but does not immediately stop exfiltration. Option C is premature. Option D is unreliable and risks reinfection.

Therefore, halting malicious transmissions is the ideal first step.

Explanation (aligned to IH&R best practice):

Insider threats are most effectively reduced by combining least privilege with continuous detection of abnormal behavior. Regular access reviews ensure that users only retain permissions needed for their roles (reducing “privilege creep”), while behavior analytics help detect misuse that still occurs within “legitimate” access. Password rotation (A) is largely hygiene and does not prevent a determined insider who already has authorized access; frequent forced changes can also push unsafe behaviors (writing passwords down, predictable patterns). A strict hierarchy (B) is not practical and does not map to “need-to-know”—seniority is not the right control boundary, job function is. Biometrics (C) strengthens authentication, but the scenario’s problem is not identity uncertainty; it is misuse by a valid insider. The most effective approach is therefore governance + monitoring: (1) define data access baselines, (2) review permissions routinely, (3) alert on suspicious actions such as unusual repository cloning, bulk downloads, access outside normal hours, or atypical branches, and (4) investigate quickly with HR/legal processes. These measures directly address motive-driven misuse by enabling early detection and limiting the blast radius. This aligns with the broader incident handling emphasis on identifying affected systems/data, understanding scope, and improving controls post-incident to prevent recurrence.

In Wireshark, the filtericmp.type==8is used to detect ping sweep attempts. ICMP type 8 messages are echo requests, which are used in ping operations to check the availability of a network device. A ping sweep involves sending ICMP echo requests to multiple addresses to discover active devices on a network. By filtering for ICMP type 8 messages in Wireshark, Bran can identify these echo requests, helping to pinpoint ping sweep activities on the network.

Insider threats are among the most difficult risks to detect because insiders often operate within legitimate access boundaries. The ECIH Insider Threat module emphasizes that behavioral analytics is the most effective approach for identifying sophisticated, low-and-slow insider activity.

Option B is correct because behavioral analytics correlates user actions over time to detect anomalies such as unusual transaction patterns, abnormal access times, or deviations from job role norms. This allows detection of malicious behavior that traditional rule-based monitoring may miss.

Options A, C, and D are invasive, unethical, and often illegal, and they contradict ECIH guidance on lawful, proportional monitoring.

ECIH stresses that insider threat programs must balance security, privacy, and legality while providing meaningful detection. Behavioral analytics meets these requirements and provides actionable insights, making Option B the correct answer.

The Delmont organization faced an espionage incident, which involves the unauthorized access and theft of proprietary or confidential information for passing it onto competitors or other external entities. Espionage is targeted at obtaining secrets or intellectual property to gain a competitive advantage or for other strategic purposes. Unlike network and resource abuses or email-based abuse, which might not specifically target sensitive information, espionage directly aims at stealing valuable data. Unauthorized access is a method that could be used in an espionage attempt but does not fully capture the motive of passing stolen information to competitors.

This incident involves malware actively impacting medical devices, posing patient safety risks. According to ECIH malware incident handling principles, the first priority is containment and eradication at the endpoint level.

Option D is correct because deploying endpoint protection directly detects and halts malware execution on the MRI machines, stopping both manipulation of results and further malicious activity. Endpoint containment is essential before network-level or recovery actions.

Option B addresses communication but does not stop local manipulation. Option C alters system state without containment. Option A is a regulatory step that follows validation.

ECIH emphasizes that in critical infrastructure and healthcare environments, immediate endpoint containment is essential to protect safety and data integrity.

In the scenario where your company sells Software as a Service (SaaS) and is hosted on the cloud using it as a Platform as a Service (PaaS), your company is responsible for eradicating malware in your customer's database. This is because, as the SaaS provider, your company manages the software and is responsible for its security and maintenance, including the databases that store customer data. While the PaaS provider is responsible for the underlying infrastructure, platform, and possibly some middleware security aspects, the application layer security, including data and application management, falls to the SaaS provider. Building management would not be involved in digital security matters, and while customers are responsible for their data, the actual software maintenance and security in a SaaS model are the provider's responsibility.

This scenario involves an active malware incident affecting content integrity, which directly impacts public trust and organizational credibility. According to the ECIH malware response lifecycle, the first priority is containment, not correction or recovery.

Option B is correct because network segregation and isolation prevent the malware from continuing to spread, communicating with command-and-control infrastructure, or further manipulating content. Containment stabilizes the environment and preserves evidence for forensic analysis.

Option C focuses on correction rather than stopping the attack and may allow malware persistence. Option D risks restoring infected components and destroying forensic artifacts. Option A is a communication decision that should follow containment and validation.

ECIH explicitly warns against performing remediation or rollback actions before containment, as doing so may worsen impact or obscure root cause analysis. Isolating compromised systems is therefore the correct immediate response.

The correct sequence to examine the originating IP address of emails involves first accessing the email's header to locate the IP address, then using external resources to investigate that address further. The steps are as follows:

Step 2:Open the email to trace and find its header. This is the initial step because the header contains valuable information about the email's journey across the internet, including the originating IP address.

Step 3:Collect the IP address of the sender from the header of the received mail. This detail is crucial for the next steps in the investigation.

Step 1:Search for the IP in the WHOIS database. This database can provide information about the owner of the IP address, including the ISP and sometimes the geographic location.

Step 4:Look for the geographic address of the sender in the WHOIS database. With the IP address information obtained from the WHOIS search, the geographic location or the originating country of the email can often be deduced, contributing to the analysis of the email's legitimacy.