312-50v13 ECCouncil Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13) Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

The SOA (Start of Authority) record is a DNS record that defines the authoritative information about a domain. Its format includes the following fields:

(domain) IN SOA (Primary Name Server) (Responsible Email)

(Serial) (Refresh) (Retry) (Expire) (Minimum TTL)

Given:

Rutgers.edu. SOA NS1.Rutgers.edu ipad.college.edu (200302028 3600 3600 604800 2400.)

Field values:

Serial: 200302028 (→ This is the version number of the zone file.)

Refresh: 3600 seconds

Retry: 3600 seconds

Expire: 604800 seconds

Minimum TTL: 2400 seconds

These values represent key configurations and are all part of the SOA record's operational data.

A: 200302028 = Serial/version (correct)

B: 3600 = Refresh (correct)

C: 604800 = Expire (correct)

D: 2400 = Minimum TTL (correct)

Incorrect Options:

E and F (60, 4800): Not part of the SOA record shown.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

An incident checklist is a low-overhead, high-impact solution to improve procedural consistency under pressure. It ensures critical steps are not forgotten during stressful incidents. The checklist can be reused and updated easily and is a recognized best practice in incident response processes.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 19: Incident Response and Forensics → Incident Handling Procedures

WPA2-PSK networks authenticate users using a pre-shared key derived from a passphrase. After capturing the 4-way handshake, CEH teaches that the standard and most effective method to recover the key is to perform an offline dictionary attack, where wordlist entries are hashed and compared against the captured handshake values. Offline cracking avoids detection and is significantly faster than brute-force attempts.

File system permissions

Processes may automatically execute specific binaries as part of their functionality or to perform other actions. If the permissions on the file system directory containing a target binary, or permissions on the binary itself, are improperly set, then the target binary may be overwritten with another binary using user-level permissions and executed by the original process. If the original process and thread are running under a higher permissions level, then the replaced binary will also execute under higher-level permissions, which could include SYSTEM.

Adversaries may use this technique to replace legitimate binaries with malicious ones as a means of executing code at a higher permissions level. If the executing process is set to run at a specific time or during a certain event (e.g., system bootup) then this technique can also be used for persistence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikto_(vulnerability_scanner)

Nikto is a free software command-line vulnerability scanner that scans web servers for dangerous files/CGIs, outdated server software, and other problems. It performs generic and server types specific checks. It also captures and prints any cookies received. The Nikto code itself is free software, but the data files it uses to drive the program are not.

CEH v13 explains that NTP (UDP port 123) can leak sensitive network information if misconfigured. When an NTP daemon allows unrestricted external queries (e.g., monlist or ntpq commands), attackers can enumerate internal IP addresses and hostnames.

This exposure is a known reconnaissance weakness and has been exploited in both information disclosure and amplification attacks. CEH v13 strongly recommends restricting NTP query access using access control lists.

DNS poisoning and honeypots do not explain legitimate NTP enumeration responses. Therefore, option D is correct.

https://www.offensive-security.com/metasploit-unleashed/msfencode/

One of the best ways to avoid being stopped by antivirus software is to encode our payload with msfencode. Msfencode is a useful tool that alters the code in an executable so that it looks different to antivirus software but will still run the same way. Much as the binary attachment in email is encoded in Base64, msfencode encodes the original executable in a new binary. Then, when the executable is run, msfencode decodes the original code into memory and exe-cutes it.

MAC flooding is a Layer 2 attack described in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking, where attackers overwhelm a switch’s CAM table with fake MAC addresses. Once the table is full, the switch behaves like a hub, forwarding traffic to all ports.

The most definitive indicator of MAC flooding is numerous MAC addresses learned on a single switch port, which is abnormal behavior in a properly segmented network. CEH v13 identifies this condition as a key forensic indicator of CAM table exhaustion.

ARP anomalies may occur, but they are more commonly associated with ARP spoofing attacks. IP-to-MAC inconsistencies indicate MITM attacks, not MAC flooding.

Thus, option C is the clearest confirmation.

SQL injection is one of the most common and dangerous vulnerabilities covered in CEH training. It occurs when an application accepts unsanitized input and directly passes it to a backend SQL query. To confirm the presence of SQL injection, the tester must insert a payload that alters the logic of the SQL query executed by the application. A classic test payload such as “1 OR 1=1 —” is widely used because it forces the database to return all rows instead of filtering based on the intended search value. This verifies whether the input field is being concatenated directly into a SQL command. The CEH methodology emphasizes starting with simple, non-destructive boolean-based payloads to safely evaluate the vulnerability without causing harm to the database or impacting server availability. Since directory traversal, brute-force login attempts, and XSS attacks target entirely different weaknesses, they are not appropriate for confirming SQL injection. The selected option aligns with proper CEH testing methodology for identifying insecure input handling and improper query construction.

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

Clickjacking is an attack that tricks a user into clicking a webpage element which is invisible or disguised as another element. This can cause users to unwittingly download malware, visit malicious web pages, provide credentials or sensitive information, transfer money, or purchase products online.

Typically, clickjacking is performed by displaying an invisible page or HTML element, inside an iframe, on top of the page the user sees. The user believes they are clicking the visible page but in fact they are clicking an invisible element in the additional page transposed on top of it.

CEH v13 emphasizes that insecure deserialization is one of the most dangerous application vulnerabilities because it can lead to arbitrary code execution, bypassing authentication, authorization, and session protections entirely.

Even with MFA, encrypted cookies, and WAFs, deserialization flaws allow attackers to manipulate serialized objects used in session handling. When deserialized without validation, these objects may execute attacker-controlled code.

CSRF relies on authenticated users. Side jacking is mitigated by encryption. Session fixation is ineffective if session regeneration and MFA are implemented. Insecure deserialization, however, attacks the application logic itself, making it the most effective option.

Thus, Option D is correct.

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.”

CEH reconnaissance and enumeration modules explain that LDAP services often support anonymous binding by default unless explicitly disabled. Anonymous bind allows unauthenticated users to query certain directory attributes, which can lead to disclosure of usernames, organizational hierarchy, and email addresses—critical information for password attacks, phishing campaigns, and privilege escalation planning. In the scenario described, the tester obtained directory data without providing any credentials, demonstrating that anonymous bind permissions were enabled. LDAPS requires TLS encryption and authentication, which contradicts the observed access. Kerberos authentication mandates valid credentials. LDAP via RADIUS is used for authentication integration, not for information disclosure. Since the query was successful with no authentication and no access controls triggered, this aligns exactly with CEH’s description of anonymous LDAP binding.

A NOP (No Operation) instruction tells the CPU to do nothing for one instruction cycle. In exploit development:

A NOP sled is a long sequence of NOPs (0x90) that increases the chance of the instruction pointer landing before the shellcode.

0x90 is the x86 opcode for the NOP instruction.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Shellcode and Buffer Overflow

The attacker has most likely used RST hijacking, which is a type of network-level session hijacking technique that exploits the TCP reset (RST) mechanism. TCP reset is a way of terminating an established TCP connection by sending a packet with the RST flag set, indicating that the sender does not want to continue the communication. RST hijacking involves sending a forged RST packet to one or both ends of a TCP connection, using a spoofed source IP address and a guessed acknowledgment number, to trick them into believing that the other end has closed the connection. As a result, the victim’s connection is reset and the attacker can take over the session or launch a denial-of-service attack12.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

A. TCP/IP hijacking: This option is a general term that refers to any type of network-level session hijacking technique that targets TCP/IP connections. RST hijacking is a specific type of TCP/IP hijacking, but not the only one. Other types of TCP/IP hijacking include SYN hijacking, source routing, and sequence prediction3.

B. UDP hijacking: This option is not applicable because UDP is a connectionless protocol that does not use TCP reset mechanism. UDP hijacking is a type of network-level session hijacking technique that targets UDP connections, such as DNS or VoIP. UDP hijacking involves intercepting and modifying UDP packets to redirect or manipulate the communication between the sender and the receiver4.

D. Blind hijacking: This option is not accurate because blind hijacking is a type of network-level session hijacking technique that does not require injecting RST packets. Blind hijacking involves guessing the sequence and acknowledgment numbers of a TCP connection without being able to see the responses from the target. Blind hijacking can be used to inject malicious data or commands into an active TCP session, but not to reset the connection5.

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.

This scenario clearly indicates a SYN Flood attack, a classic Denial-of-Service technique discussed in CEH v13 Network and Perimeter Hacking. In a normal TCP three-way handshake, a client sends a SYN, the server responds with SYN-ACK, and the client completes the connection with an ACK. In a SYN flood, attackers send a massive number of SYN packets but never complete the handshake.

As described in CEH v13, the server allocates memory and resources for each half-open connection, placing them in the SYN_RECEIVED state. When these connections are not finalized, the server’s connection table becomes saturated, preventing legitimate users from establishing new sessions.

Other options are incorrect:

Smurf attacks rely on ICMP amplification, not TCP handshakes.

Ping of Death uses malformed ICMP packets.

UDP Floods overwhelm ports using UDP, not TCP session states.

CEH v13 emphasizes SYN floods as one of the most common Layer 4 DoS attacks due to their simplicity and effectiveness.

A hybrid attack combines the benefits of both dictionary and brute-force attacks. It takes words from a dictionary and applies modifications such as:

Appending or prepending numbers or symbols

Changing case (e.g., admin → Admin1!)

Leetspeak substitutions (e.g., p@ssw0rd)

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Topic: Password Cracking Methods

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A hybrid attack is a combination of dictionary and brute-force techniques. It takes dictionary words and mutates them to cover common variations, making it more effective than pure dictionary attacks.”

Incorrect Options:

A/B/D: These are not standard terminology in cryptographic or password auditing literature.

Risk Mitigation

Risk mitigation can be defined as taking steps to reduce adverse effects. There are four types of risk mitigation strategies that hold unique to Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery. When mitigating risk, it’s important to develop a strategy that closely relates to and matches your company’s profile.

Risk Acceptance

Risk acceptance does not reduce any effects; however, it is still considered a strategy. This strategy is a common option when the cost of other risk management options such as avoidance or limitation may outweigh the cost of the risk itself. A company that doesn’t want to spend a lot of money on avoiding risks that do not have a high possibility of occurring will use the risk acceptance strategy.

Risk Avoidance

Risk avoidance is the opposite of risk acceptance. It is the action that avoids any exposure to the risk whatsoever. It’s important to note that risk avoidance is usually the most expensive of all risk mitigation options.

Risk Limitation

Risk limitation is the most common risk management strategy used by businesses. This strategy limits a company’s exposure by taking some action. It is a strategy employing a bit of risk acceptance and a bit of risk avoidance or an average of both. An example of risk limitation would be a company accepting that a disk drive may fail and avoiding a long period of failure by having backups.

Risk Transference

Risk transference is the involvement of handing risk off to a willing third party. For example, numerous companies outsource certain operations such as customer service, payroll services, etc. This can be beneficial for a company if a transferred risk is not a core competency of that company. It can also be used so a company can focus more on its core competencies.

CEH’s approach to suspected compromise aligns with an incident-handling mindset: containment first, then analysis and remediation. In IoT and OT-adjacent environments (smart city infrastructure, SCADA-like components, embedded controllers), CEH emphasizes that suspicious external communications and unexplained open ports may indicate compromise, misconfiguration, exposed management services, or implanted malware/backdoors. Because IoT endpoints often have limited logging and are difficult to reimage safely, the safest next step is to isolate the suspected device to prevent further data exfiltration, command-and-control activity, or lateral movement to other city systems.

Option A best matches CEH guidance: isolate the device and investigate its firmware, services, and configuration, including checking for unauthorized binaries, altered firmware images, insecure default services, and hardcoded credentials. This also preserves evidence and reduces the blast radius.

Option C (blocking the external IP) can be helpful, but it’s a partial control: attackers can rotate infrastructure, and the device could still be compromised internally. Option B (full network pen test) is too broad and delays containment when a specific high-risk indicator is already present. Option D (attempting a reverse connection) crosses into active exploitation behavior and is not an appropriate “next step” in a defensive investigation; CEH methodology stresses authorized, controlled testing and prioritizes risk reduction over interacting with suspicious external hosts.

Thus, CEH-aligned best practice is immediate isolation and firmware-level investigation.

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. 

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

CEH v13 highlights that SNMPv1/v2 environments configured with default community strings such as "public" or "private" present significant security risks because they allow unauthorized users to query system information. SNMP enumeration can reveal processes, interfaces, routing tables, users, device configurations, and more. The snmp-processes Nmap NSE script is specifically designed to enumerate running processes on an SNMP-enabled host. It queries the Host Resources MIB (HR-MIB), which stores operational information about system processes, CPU usage, and memory consumption. This information provides attackers with insights into what services may be exploitable or misconfigured. CEH stresses that SNMPv2 is particularly vulnerable due to lack of encryption and authentication hardening. By enumerating processes, penetration testers can identify potential privilege escalation paths, outdated services, or rogue applications that may aid lateral movement. Other scripts such as snmp-sysdescr or snmp-interfaces retrieve system description or interface data but do not enumerate processes.

In CEH v13 Module 13: Hacking Web Applications, this exact payload is an example of an XXE (XML External Entity) Attack.

XXE Attack:

Exploits the way XML parsers process DOCTYPE declarations.

The payload references a local file (/etc/passwd), allowing local file inclusion.

Can result in sensitive file disclosure, SSRF, or Denial of Service (DoS).

Option Clarification:

A. XXE: Correct – targets vulnerable XML parsers.

B. SQLi: Targets SQL databases with ' OR '1'='1-type injections.

C. IDOR: Insecure Direct Object Reference, not related to XML.

D. XSS: Cross-site scripting; this is XML-based, not JavaScript injection.

According to CEH v13 Security Operations and Incident Response, zero-day vulnerabilities pose one of the highest operational risks because exploits exist before official remediation is available. When active exploitation is observed and no vendor patch exists, immediate compensating controls must be deployed.

The first and most effective action is implementing virtual patching, typically through a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or Intrusion Prevention System (IPS). CEH v13 defines virtual patching as a security measure that blocks exploitation attempts at the network or application layer without modifying the vulnerable software. This approach allows organizations to maintain service availability while reducing exposure.

Shutting down the server (Option A) may prevent exploitation but introduces unacceptable business disruption and is not recommended as a first response. Backups and incident response planning (Option C) are critical but do not actively prevent exploitation. Passive monitoring (Option D) allows attackers to continue exploiting the vulnerability unchecked.

CEH v13 emphasizes that virtual patching is the preferred first response for zero-day threats, especially when systems are mission-critical. It provides immediate risk reduction while allowing time for vendor patch development and controlled deployment.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

In TCP session hijacking or spoofing:

An attacker sends a spoofed packet with the ACK bit set and a guessed (or predicted) sequence number to fool the receiver into thinking it's a legitimate continuation of an existing session.

Fred is simulating this by sending a TCP packet with the ACK bit and using his own IP as the source, trying to trick the switch into believing it's part of an already established session.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 11: Session Hijacking

SYN/FIN scanning using IP fragments is a process of scanning that was developed to avoid false positives generated by other scans because of a packet filtering device on the target system. The TCP header splits into several packets to evade the packet filter. For any transmission, every TCP header must have the source and destination port for the initial packet (8-octet, 64-bit). The initialized flags in the next packet allow the remote host to reassemble the packets upon receipt via an Internet protocol module that detects the fragmented data packets using field-equivalent values of the source, destination, protocol, and identification.

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.

According to the CEH Vulnerability Assessment and Incident Response modules, vulnerabilities with high CVSS scores and potential RCE must be treated as active threats.

CEH best practices recommend:

Immediate containment (network isolation)

Investigation and impact analysis

Patch application

Recovery

Option D follows the CEH incident response lifecycle precisely.

Option C is incomplete without containment.

Options A and B are unsafe.

CEH emphasizes containment before remediation.

Passive Assessment Passive assessments sniff the traffic present on the network to identify the active systems, network services, applications, and vulnerabilities. Passive assessments also provide a list of the users who are currently accessing the network.

Dragonblood allows an attacker in range of a password-protected Wi-Fi network to get the password and gain access to sensitive information like user credentials, emails and mastercard numbers. consistent with the published report:

“The WPA3 certification aims to secure Wi-Fi networks, and provides several advantages over its predecessor WPA2, like protection against offline dictionary attacks and forward secrecy. Unfortunately, we show that WPA3 is suffering from several design flaws, and analyze these flaws both theoretically and practically. Most prominently, we show that WPA3’s Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE) handshake, commonly referred to as Dragonfly, is suffering from password partitioning attacks.”

Our Wi-Fi researchers at WatchGuard are educating businesses globally that WPA3 alone won’t stop the Wi-Fi hacks that allow attackers to steal information over the air (learn more in our recent blog post on the topic). These Dragonblood vulnerabilities impact alittle amount of devices that were released with WPA3 support, and makers are currently making patches available. one among the most important takeaways for businesses of all sizes is to know that a long-term fix might not be technically feasible for devices with lightweight processing capabilities like IoT and embedded systems. Businesses got to consider adding products that enable a Trusted Wireless Environment for all kinds of devices and users alike.

Recognizing that vulnerabilities like KRACK and Dragonblood require attackers to initiate these attacks by bringing an “Evil Twin” Access Point or a Rogue Access Point into a Wi-Fi environment, we’ve been that specialize in developing Wi-Fi security solutions that neutralize these threats in order that these attacks can never occur. The Trusted Wireless Environment framework protects against the “Evil Twin” Access Point and Rogue Access Point. one among these hacks is required to initiate the 2 downgrade or side-channel attacks referenced in Dragonblood.

What’s next? WPA3 is an improvement over WPA2 Wi-Fi encryption protocol, however, as we predicted, it still doesn’t provide protection from the six known Wi-Fi threat categories. It’s highly likely that we’ll see more WPA3 vulnerabilities announced within the near future.

To help reduce Wi-Fi vulnerabilities, we’re asking all of you to hitch the Trusted Wireless Environment movement and advocate for a worldwide security standard for Wi-Fi.

CEH v13 outlines insertion attacks as IDS evasion methods in which attackers send packets deliberately crafted so that the IDS processes them differently from the target host. In an insertion attack, malformed packets appear legitimate to the IDS—allowing malicious traffic to blend with benign inspection results—while the end host rejects or modifies the packets due to incorrect checksums, invalid flags, or protocol inconsistencies. As a result, the IDS sees one set of reconstructed data, while the actual host processes a different version or nothing at all. CEH emphasizes that intrusion detection systems may not follow full TCP/IP stack validation, making them susceptible to deception by malformed or borderline-conformant packets. Polymorphic shellcode (Option B) changes payload signatures, not packet structure. Session splicing (Option C) splits payload across packets to evade pattern matching but does not rely on checksum manipulation. Fragmentation attacks (Option D) divide traffic into smaller fragments, not alter validity fields. The described behavior fits insertion attacks precisely.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A Suicide Hacker is someone who launches a cyberattack without regard for the consequences, such as being caught or imprisoned. Yancey's actions fit this profile because:

He is knowingly committing illegal acts.

He is fully aware of and indifferent to the consequences.

His motive is revenge, not ideology or personal gain.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking → Types of Hackers

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.

This describes a rule-based or logic-based password attack, which CEH v13 classifies as a smart, targeted guessing technique. Attackers use known patterns—such as naming conventions, dates, or personal interests—to reduce the keyspace and increase success rates.

Option A accurately reflects this methodology. Option B is brute force, which is random and exhaustive. Option C is physical observation. Option D describes hybrid attacks without structured logic.

CEH v13 emphasizes that pattern-based attacks are highly effective when attackers possess prior intelligence. Therefore, Option A is correct.

TCP port 48101 uses the Transmission management Protocol. transmission control protocol is one in all the most protocols in TCP/IP networks. transmission control protocol could be a connection-oriented protocol, it needs acknowledgement to line up end-to-end communications. only a association is about up user’s knowledge may be sent bi-directionally over the association.

Attention! transmission control protocol guarantees delivery of knowledge packets on port 48101 within the same order during which they were sent. bonded communication over transmission control protocol port 48101 is that the main distinction between transmission control protocol and UDP. UDP port 48101 wouldn’t have bonded communication as transmission control protocol.

UDP on port 48101 provides Associate in Nursing unreliable service and datagrams might arrive duplicated, out of order, or missing unexpectedly. UDP on port 48101 thinks that error checking and correction isn’t necessary or performed within the application, avoiding the overhead of such process at the network interface level.

UDP (User Datagram Protocol) could be a borderline message-oriented Transport Layer protocol (protocol is documented in IETF RFC 768).

Application examples that always use UDP: vocalisation IP (VoIP), streaming media and period multiplayer games. several internet applications use UDP, e.g. the name System (DNS), the Routing info Protocol (RIP), the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), the straightforward Network Management Protocol (SNMP).

CEH v13 explains that cryptographic consistency is essential for secure session management. Variable token lengths can leak information about encryption methods, key sizes, or user privilege levels, making sessions vulnerable to cryptanalysis or targeted attacks.

The most effective mitigation is implementing uniform encryption strength across all roles, ensuring consistent key sizes, algorithms, and token formats. While MFA improves authentication and key rotation improves lifecycle management, neither directly resolves cryptographic inconsistency.

CEH v13 stresses that encryption should be role-agnostic and standardized. Therefore, Option C is correct.

In order to circumvent network protection tools, cybercriminals may forge a TCP session more efficiently by submitting a bogus SYN packet, a series of ACK packets, and at least one RST (reset) or FIN (connection termination) packet. This tactic allows crooks to get around defenses that only keep tabs on incoming traffic rather than analyzing return traffic.

The hosts file on a computer maps domain names to IP addresses locally. By modifying this file, an attacker can redirect traffic destined for legitimate sites (e.g., www.MyPersonalBank.com) to malicious IP addresses (e.g., a phishing server).

The hosts file takes precedence over DNS queries, making it a simple but powerful tool for local redirection.

Windows hosts file location: C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts

Linux/Unix hosts file location: /etc/hosts

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Quote:

“Attackers can redirect users to phishing or malware sites by altering the local hosts file, bypassing DNS resolution.”

Incorrect Options:

A. boot.ini is for boot configuration, not DNS resolution.

B. sudoers controls administrative privileges in Linux.

C. networks is for defining network names, not URL resolution.

=