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

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.

According to CEH v13 Security Operations and Incident Response, backdoors are stealth mechanisms that allow attackers persistent access. Indicators such as unexplained outbound traffic, unauthorized file modifications, and irregular reboots strongly suggest post-compromise persistence mechanisms.

CEH v13 recommends a behavioral and host-based detection approach for backdoor identification. Continuous monitoring of system and file activity helps detect unauthorized binaries, registry changes, and scheduled tasks. Anomaly detection identifies deviations from normal system behavior, which is critical for uncovering hidden backdoors that evade signature-based detection.

Additionally, advanced anti-malware tools with heuristic and memory analysis capabilities are essential to identify sophisticated backdoors that traditional antivirus may miss. These tools can detect rootkits, fileless persistence, and covert communication channels.

The other options are preventative but not investigative. Immediate reboots may destroy volatile evidence, while password policies and ACLs do not detect existing compromises. Therefore, option B provides the most effective and CEH-aligned response.

Netcat does not support encryption natively. To securely transmit data over the network, the attacker must use a variant like Cryptcat, which adds symmetric encryption to standard netcat functionality.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing and Secure Communication

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Cryptcat is a netcat clone that supports encryption. For secure file transfers or remote shell access, cryptcat is the recommended tool.”

Incorrect Options:

A/B/C: These are invalid or non-existent netcat parameters.

CEH v13 describes relay attacks as credential forwarding techniques where attackers trick systems into authenticating to malicious servers, capturing hashes, and relaying them to privileged services. The described scenario aligns exactly with the PetitPotam attack, a known MS-EFSRPC abuse method that forces Windows domain controllers to perform NTLM authentication to attacker-controlled hosts. CEH discusses how relay attacks combined with Active Directory Certificate Services (AD CS) misconfigurations can allow attackers to request privileged certificates, effectively gaining domain administrator privileges without cracking hashes or accessing LSASS. CRIME (Option B) targets TLS compression and is unrelated. Browser token theft (Option C) applies to web sessions, not domain controllers. Session donation (Option D) is not part of Windows authentication hijacking. Thus, the scenario clearly represents a PetitPotam NTLM relay attack.

TCP port 21 is used by the File Transfer Protocol (FTP), which is an unencrypted protocol. To detect if unencrypted file transfers are taking place, you can apply the Wireshark display filter:

tcp.port == 21

This will show all traffic to and from FTP servers. Since FTP transmits usernames, passwords, and data in clear text, its use would violate the company’s policy.

CEH v13 states:

“FTP (Port 21) is a cleartext protocol vulnerable to sniffing. To enforce secure communication, companies often transition to SFTP (over SSH, port 22) or FTPS (FTP over TLS/SSL).”

Incorrect Options:

B. Port 23 is used for Telnet, not FTP.

C. Combining FTP (21) and SSH/SFTP (22) would include encrypted traffic, which is not what you're trying to isolate.

D. tcp.port != 21 filters out FTP traffic, which is the opposite of the intended goal.

Reference – CEH v13 Guide:

Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking

Subsection: Sniffing and Cleartext Protocols

Wireshark iLab: Identifying FTP Traffic

=

CEH v13 explains that WPA2-Enterprise replaces the static, shared password model of WPA2-Personal with a centralized authentication system that relies on the 802.1X framework. The essential component of this architecture is RADIUS integrated with EAP, which manages user authentication, device identity verification, and dynamic session key generation. RADIUS acts as the backend authentication server, while EAP provides a flexible authentication framework supporting certificates, smartcards, or credentials. This combination allows organizations to enforce per-user access control policies, revoke individual users without changing network-wide passwords, and generate unique Pairwise Master Keys (PMKs) for every authenticated session. CEH highlights that one of the major advantages of WPA2-Enterprise is its ability to produce unique encryption keys for each client, preventing key reuse and mitigating lateral movement if one device is compromised. Certificate-based EAP types such as EAP-TLS introduce mutual authentication, ensuring both client and server validate each other’s identity before allowing network access. This significantly increases security posture compared to PSK networks, which cannot scale securely for large enterprise deployments.

The official management decision given by a senior agency official to authorize operation of an information system and to explicitly accept the risk to agency operations (including mission, functions, image, or reputation), agency assets, or individuals, based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls.

formal declaration by a designated accrediting authority (DAA) or principal accrediting authority (PAA) that an information system is approved to operate at an acceptable level of risk, based on the implementation of an approved set of technical, managerial, and procedural safeguards. See authorization to operate (ATO). Rationale: The Risk Management Framework uses a new term to refer to this concept, and it is called authorization.

Identifies the information resources covered by an accreditation decision, as distinguished from separately accredited information resources that are interconnected or with which information is exchanged via messaging. Synonymous with Security Perimeter.

For the purposes of identifying the Protection Level for confidentiality of a system to be accredited, the system has a conceptual boundary that extends to all intended users of the system, both directly and indirectly connected, who receive output from the system. See authorization boundary. Rationale: The Risk Management Framework uses a new term to refer to the concept of accreditation, and it is called authorization. Extrapolating, the accreditation boundary would then be referred to as the authorization boundary.

Patch management is that the method that helps acquire, test and install multiple patches (code changes) on existing applications and software tools on a pc, enabling systems to remain updated on existing patches and determining that patches are the suitable ones. Managing patches so becomes simple and simple.

Patch Management is usually done by software system firms as a part of their internal efforts to mend problems with the various versions of software system programs and also to assist analyze existing software system programs and discover any potential lack of security features or different upgrades.

Software patches help fix those problems that exist and are detected solely once the software’s initial unharness. Patches mostly concern security while there are some patches that concern the particular practicality of programs as well.

CEH v13 identifies Idle (Zombie) Scanning as one of the most stealthy reconnaissance techniques. In this method, attackers use a third-party system (the zombie) to send probes to the target, obscuring the attacker’s true identity.

Because the attacker never directly interacts with the target, detection and attribution become extremely difficult. FIN and Xmas scans are stealthy but still originate from the attacker’s IP. TCP connect scans are noisy and easily detected.

CEH v13 highlights idle scanning as the gold standard for stealth reconnaissance, making option D correct.

Hashing algorithms (such as SHA-256 or MD5) are used to generate a unique digital fingerprint of a file or message. Once the CFO approves the financial statement, generating a hash value for the document ensures that if any modification occurs (even a single bit), the hash value will change, indicating a breach in data integrity.

This solution directly addresses integrity — one of the three components of the CIA triad (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability). Password protection or transferring via USB does not ensure integrity; they offer access control and delivery security.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Social Engineering module defines whaling as a highly targeted phishing attack aimed specifically at senior executives or high-ranking personnel.

This scenario exhibits all whaling characteristics: personalization, impersonation of leadership, business-themed content, and tailored malware delivery.

Option D is correct.

Option A involves copying legitimate emails, but does not necessarily target executives.

Option B lacks targeting.

Option C is unrelated to email-based attacks.

CEH stresses executive awareness training to counter whaling attacks.

According to CEH v13 Network Scanning Techniques, a FIN scan is a stealth scanning method that sends TCP packets with only the FIN flag set. Its behavior relies on RFC 793, which specifies that closed ports must respond with a TCP RST, while open ports should silently drop the packet.

However, modern firewalls, IDS/IPS systems, and hardened TCP/IP stacks often filter or silently drop FIN packets regardless of port state. Therefore, when a FIN scan results in no response from a large number of ports, it does not conclusively indicate that the ports are open. Instead, CEH v13 stresses that this behavior commonly points to packet filtering by firewalls or security controls.

Option A is incorrect because a lack of response does not definitively mean ports are closed. Option B is an overreaction; stealth scan anomalies alone do not indicate a breach. Option C is unlikely because congestion would impact multiple protocols, not selectively suppress FIN responses.

CEH v13 recommends that when FIN scans produce ambiguous results, analysts should correlate findings using additional scan types (such as SYN scans) and investigate firewall rules and filtering behavior. Thus, option D is the most accurate interpretation and aligns with CEH guidance.

Snort is an open-source Network Intrusion Detection and Prevention System (NIDS/NIPS) capable of real-time traffic analysis and packet logging. It functions as a sniffer and can detect various forms of attacks using signature-based rules.

CEH v13 Reference:

Module 10: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots

"Snort can operate as a sniffer, logger, or full NIDS capable of real-time traffic analysis."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

This refers to the CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System), which CEH v13 identifies as the industry standard for vulnerability prioritization. A score of 9.8 indicates critical severity, combining metrics such as exploitability, impact, privileges required, and scope.

CVSS helps organizations prioritize remediation objectively, focusing resources on vulnerabilities with the highest business risk. It also allows consistent communication between technical and management teams.

Options B, C, and D misrepresent CVSS functionality. Therefore, Option A is correct.

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.

MX (Mail Exchange) records in DNS define the mail servers responsible for receiving email for a domain. Each MX record has a priority value.

Important concept:

A lower number indicates a higher priority.

Email servers attempt delivery to the mail server with the lowest priority first.

For example:

If MX records are:

10 mail1.example.com

20 mail2.example.com

Then mail1 will be tried first. If it fails, mail2 will be used.

So the statement “MX record priority increases as the number increases” is false.

In CEH v13 Module 11: Hacking Wireless Networks, WPA3-Personal is discussed as the latest wireless encryption standard designed to address the weaknesses of WPA2, particularly PSK brute-force vulnerabilities.

Key Features of WPA3-Personal:

Replaces the pre-shared key (PSK) with Simultaneous Authentication of Equals (SAE), also known as the Dragonfly Key Exchange.

SAE performs a zero-knowledge proof which makes it resistant to offline dictionary attacks.

Even if attackers capture the handshake, they cannot use it to brute-force passwords offline.

Option Clarification:

A. WPA3-Personal: Correct – uses SAE instead of PSK.

B. WPA2-Enterprise: Uses 802.1X, not related to SAE.

C. Bluetooth: Wireless protocol but unrelated to SAE or WPA.

D. ZigBee: IoT protocol; unrelated to Wi-Fi security protocols.

The security strategy that you would likely suggest is to adopt a Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy involving ongoing prediction, prevention, detection, and response actions to ensure comprehensive computer network defense. This strategy is based on the concept of continuous monitoring and improvement of the security posture of an organization, using a feedback loop that integrates various security activities and technologies. A Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy aims to proactively identify and mitigate emerging threats, vulnerabilities, and risks, as well as to respond effectively and efficiently to security incidents and breaches. A Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy can help enhance the organization’s security stance by providing the following benefits12:

It can reduce the attack surface and the exposure time of the organization’s network infrastructure, by applying timely patches, updates, and configurations, as well as by implementing security controls and policies.

It can increase the visibility and awareness of the organization’s network activity and behavior, by collecting, analyzing, and correlating data from various sources, such as logs, sensors, alerts, and reports.

It can improve the detection and prevention capabilities of the organization, by using advanced tools and techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, threat intelligence, and behavioral analytics, to identify and block malicious or anomalous patterns and indicators.

It can enhance the response and recovery processes of the organization, by using automated and orchestrated actions, such as isolation, quarantine, remediation, and restoration, to contain and resolve security incidents and breaches, as well as by conducting lessons learned and root cause analysis to prevent recurrence.

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

A. Develop an in-depth Risk Management process, involving identification, assessment, treatment, tracking, and review of risks to control the potential effects on the organization: This option is not sufficient because risk management is only one aspect of a comprehensive security strategy, and it does not address the dynamic and evolving nature of cyber threats and vulnerabilities. Risk management is a process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations, as well as monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the risk treatment measures3. Risk management can help the organization prioritize and allocate resources for security, but it cannot guarantee the prevention or detection of security incidents and breaches, nor the response and recovery from them.

B. Establish a Defense-in-Depth strategy, incorporating multiple layers of security measures to increase the complexity and decrease the likelihood of a successful attack: This option is not optimal because defense-in-depth is a traditional and static approach to security, and it may not be able to cope with the sophisticated and persistent attacks that exploit unknown or zero-day vulnerabilities. Defense-in-depth is a strategy of implementing multiple and diverse security controls and mechanisms at different layers of the organization’s network infrastructure, such as perimeter, network, endpoint, application, and data, to provide redundancy and resilience against attacks4. Defense-in-depth can help the organization protect its assets and systems from unauthorized access or damage, but it cannot ensure the timely detection and response to security incidents and breaches, nor the continuous improvement of the security posture.

D. Implement an Information Assurance (IA) policy focusing on ensuring the integrity, availability, confidentiality, and authenticity of information systems: This option is not comprehensive because information assurance is a subset of cybersecurity, and it does not cover all the aspects of a holistic security strategy. Information assurance is a discipline of managing the risks associated with the use, processing, storage, and transmission of information and data, and ensuring the protection of the information and data from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction5. Information assurance can help the organization safeguard its information and data from compromise or loss, but it does not address the prevention, detection, and response to security incidents and breaches, nor the adaptation and innovation of the security technologies and processes.

This scenario represents a Tautology-Based SQL Injection, a fundamental SQL injection technique covered under the Web Application Hacking module in the CEH v13 curriculum. The defining characteristic of this attack is the injection of a condition that always evaluates to TRUE, thereby bypassing authentication or authorization controls.

In the given example, the injected input 1 OR 'T'='T'; -- manipulates the logical condition of the SQL query. A typical vulnerable login query may resemble:

SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id = 1 AND password = 'input';

When the attacker submits the injected payload, the resulting SQL statement becomes:

SELECT * FROM users WHERE user_id = 1 OR 'T'='T'; --';

The expression 'T'='T' is a tautology, meaning it always evaluates to TRUE regardless of context. As a result, the database returns records without properly validating the user’s credentials, granting unauthorized access.

According to EC-Council CEH v13, tautology-based SQL injection is classified as a Boolean-based injection technique where attackers exploit improper input validation to alter the logical flow of SQL queries. This attack does not depend on database error messages (as in Error-Based SQL Injection), does not extract data using UNION statements (Union-Based SQL Injection), and does not rely on response delays (Time-Based Blind SQL Injection).

CEH v13 emphasizes that such attacks are especially effective against login forms and authentication mechanisms when developers fail to implement input sanitization, parameterized queries, or prepared statements. This attack is one of the most common and exam-tested SQL injection types because it clearly demonstrates how flawed logic can compromise application security without advanced techniques.

Understanding tautology-based SQL injection is critical for ethical hackers, as it forms the foundation for identifying and mitigating more complex SQL injection variants.

A covert channel is a communication method used to transfer information in a way that violates security policy, often by repurposing legitimate protocols or functions for unauthorized communication.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Topic: Covert Communication and Data Exfiltration Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A covert channel exploits unintended uses of legitimate communication protocols. It allows data to be transmitted without detection by hiding the communication inside seemingly benign traffic.”

Incorrect Options:

A: A non-standard port may aid in hiding services, but doesn’t constitute a covert channel.

C: Multiplexing is a normal communication mechanism.

D: WEP is insecure, but this isn’t related to covert channels.

Once a suitable zombie has been found, performing a scan is easy. Simply specify the zombie hostname to the -sI option and Nmap does the rest. Example 5.19 shows an example of Ereet scanning the Recording Industry Association of America by bouncing an idle scan off an Adobe machine named Kiosk.

Example 5.19. An idle scan against the RIAA

# nmap -Pn -p- -sI kiosk.adobe.com www.riaa.com

Starting Nmap ( http://nmap.org )

Idlescan using zombie kiosk.adobe.com (192.150.13.111:80); Class: Incremental

Nmap scan report for 208.225.90.120

(The 65522 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)

Port       State       Service

21/tcp     open        ftp

25/tcp     open        smtp

80/tcp     open        http

111/tcp    open        sunrpc

135/tcp    open        loc-srv

443/tcp    open        https

1027/tcp   open        IIS

1030/tcp   open        iad1

2306/tcp   open        unknown

5631/tcp   open        pcanywheredata

7937/tcp   open        unknown

7938/tcp   open        unknown

36890/tcp  open        unknown

Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2594.47 seconds

CEH v13 explains that directory traversal (also called path traversal) occurs when an application improperly handles user-supplied input used for file path generation. Attackers exploit this by inserting traversal sequences such as ../ beyond the intended directories, gaining access to sensitive files like /etc/passwd, configuration data, or source code. The vulnerability arises from missing input validation and failure to restrict file access to safe directories. CEH stresses that directory traversal is common in file handling functions such as view, download, or include operations. Brute-forcing credentials (Option A) is unrelated. XSS (Option C) targets script injection into web pages, not file access. Buffer overflow (Option D) manipulates memory, not file paths. Therefore, the scenario represents classic directory traversal exploitation.

CEH v13 explains that LDAP enumeration is often restricted by Access Control Lists (ACLs). Sensitive directory objects and attributes are frequently protected to prevent unauthorized disclosure.

Even when LDAP is accessible, ACLs can limit the visibility of users, groups, and configuration data.

In CEH v13 Module 01: Introduction to Ethical Hacking, Gray Hat hackers are described as those who operate between ethical and unethical lines:

Gray Hat Characteristics:

Discover vulnerabilities without permission.

May explore or exploit them without malicious intent, but also without authorization.

May or may not disclose them after exploration.

Not fully black hat (malicious), nor white hat (authorized and ethical).

In this case, John explored sensitive employee data without authorization, even though he worked for the organization. That behavior places him in the gray hat category.

Option Clarification:

A. Cybercriminal: Generally linked to criminal activities for gain.

B. Black hat: Unauthorized access with malicious or financial intent.

C. White hat: Authorized ethical hackers.

D. Gray hat: Correct – Unauthorized, curious access without immediate harm.

In LM hashing (used in legacy Windows systems), passwords are split into two 7-character chunks. If a password is fewer than 8 characters, the second half is padded with nulls and hashed to a constant value.

That constant is:

AAD3B435B51404EE

Thus, the second half of the LM hash (the rightmost 16 characters) is always the same if the password is < 8 characters.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → LM Hash Characteristics

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“If the password is less than 8 characters, the second half of the LM hash will always be ‘AAD3B435B51404EE’, indicating the hash belongs to a short password.”

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.

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.

This scenario strongly suggests a race condition attack in the application’s token validation logic, as described in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking. A race condition occurs when an application processes multiple requests simultaneously and fails to properly synchronize validation checks.

The presence of multiple failed attempts using expired tokens followed by successful access within a short time window indicates the attacker exploited a timing flaw. During this window, the system may have inconsistently validated token expiration, allowing an expired token to be accepted.

Option A is unlikely because the logs specifically reference expired tokens. Option B is incorrect because replaying expired tokens should fail unless a validation flaw exists. Option C is highly improbable due to token entropy.

CEH v13 highlights race conditions as advanced logic flaws that are difficult to detect and often missed during standard testing. They are commonly exploited in authentication, payment processing, and session management systems.

Therefore, Option D is the correct and CEH-aligned answer.

This technique is known as Boolean-Based Blind SQL Injection, as defined in CEH v13 Web Application Hacking. When applications suppress database errors and return generic responses, attackers use conditional statements to infer database behavior.

By comparing responses to true (1=1) and false (1=2) conditions, the attacker deduces whether injected SQL is being executed successfully.

CEH v13 distinguishes this from:

Error-based SQLi (visible DB errors)

UNION-based SQLi (data extraction)

Time-based SQLi (response delays)

Boolean-based blind SQL injection relies solely on content differences, making option C correct.

CEH v13 explains that IDS systems are often tuned to detect active scanning behavior, especially port scans and TCP/UDP probing that generate recognizable signatures. The command nmap -sn -PE performs a pure ICMP Echo Request ping sweep without sending any TCP SYN, UDP probes, or other packets normally associated with port enumeration. Since this mode disables port scanning entirely, it produces minimal traffic that resembles legitimate network behavior. CEH emphasizes that many networks allow ICMP Echo traffic internally for diagnostics, so such pings may not be treated as suspicious unless rate thresholds are exceeded. Because the tester avoided SYN packets, ACK probes, and UDP scans, the IDS saw no malicious pattern or connection attempts. The effectiveness of this technique is highlighted in CEH under passive and stealth reconnaissance, where minimal interaction is used to avoid detection. Thus, the scan succeeded because it relied solely on ICMP host discovery, not port scanning.

In CEH v13 Information Security and Ethical Hacking Overview, a penetration tester is defined as a trusted, authorized security professional hired to simulate real-world attacks in order to identify and exploit vulnerabilities with explicit permission.

The primary objectives of a penetration tester are:

Identify weaknesses in systems, networks, and applications

Demonstrate real-world impact of vulnerabilities

Help organizations improve their security posture

Unlike malicious hackers (Option A) or malware authors (Options B and D), penetration testers operate under strict legal and ethical guidelines, following scopes of engagement and reporting findings responsibly.

CEH v13 emphasizes that penetration testing is proactive defense, not crime. Therefore, Option C accurately defines the role.

Ethical hacking, as defined throughout CEH courseware, is the authorized and legitimate process of identifying vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and misconfigurations in information systems. The primary objective is to strengthen security by discovering issues before malicious actors can exploit them. Ethical hackers follow strict legal guidelines, obtain written permission, and operate within a defined scope to ensure their activities contribute positively to the organization’s security posture. Unlike malicious hacking, the intent is not to steal data, cause harm, or disrupt operations. Ethical hackers use the same tools, techniques, and methodologies that attackers use, but with the purpose of remediation and risk reduction. CEH emphasizes that ethical hacking supports defense-in-depth strategies by enabling organizations to harden their environments and proactively mitigate threats. Therefore, identifying and fixing vulnerabilities is the central mission of ethical hacking.

Source: https://www.flowmon.com

Flowmon empowers manufacturers and utility companies to ensure the reliability of

their industrial networks confidently to avoid downtime and disruption of service

continuity. This can be achieved by continuous monitoring and anomaly detection so

that malfunctioning devices or security incidents, such as cyber espionage, zero-days, or

malware, can be reported and remedied as quickly as possible.

A hybrid attack combines a dictionary and brute-force approach. Given that:

Passwords are required to be complex

Users still often choose predictable variations (e.g., Password123!, Welcome@2024)

A hybrid attack is best suited because it applies common mutations to known words—much faster than full brute force and more effective than a plain dictionary attack.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Password Cracking → Attack Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Hybrid attacks combine the speed of dictionary attacks with some of the thoroughness of brute-force. It’s ideal when users use complex but predictable passwords.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Online attacks are slow and may trigger account lockouts.

B: Plain dictionary attacks won’t cover variations like “P@ssw0rd!”

C: Brute-force would be too slow for complex passwords.

JXplorer could be a cross platform LDAP browser and editor. it’s a standards compliant general purpose LDAP client which will be used to search, scan and edit any commonplace LDAP directory, or any directory service with an LDAP or DSML interface.

It is extremely flexible and can be extended and custom in a very number of the way. JXplorer is written in java, and also the source code and source code build system ar obtainable via svn or as a packaged build for users who wish to experiment or any develop the program.

JX is is available in 2 versions; the free open source version under an OSI Apache two style licence, or within the JXWorkBench Enterprise bundle with inbuilt reporting, administrative and security tools.

JX has been through a number of different versions since its creation in 1999; the foremost recent stable release is version 3.3.1, the August 2013 release.

JXplorer could be a absolutely useful LDAP consumer with advanced security integration and support for the harder and obscure elements of the LDAP protocol. it’s been tested on Windows, Solaris, linux and OSX, packages are obtainable for HPUX, AIX, BSD and it should run on any java supporting OS.

Lock-in reflects the inability of the client to migrate from one CSP to another or in-house systems owing to the lack of tools, procedures, standard data formats, applications, and service portability. This threat is related to the inappropriate selection of a CSP, incomplete and non-transparent terms of use, lack of standard mechanisms, etc. (P.2884/2868)

Tcpdump is a data-network packet analyzer computer program that runs under a command-line interface. It allows the user to display TCP/IP and other packets being transmitted or received over a network to which the computer is attached. Distributed under the BSD license, tcpdump is free software.

https://www.wireshark.org/

Wireshark is a free and open-source packet analyzer. It is used for network troubleshooting, analysis, software and communications protocol development, and education.

NOTE: Wireshark is very similar to tcpdump, but has a graphical front-end, plus some integrated sorting and filtering options.

The CEH v13 content explains that stealth scanning involves modifying scan timing parameters to reduce packet frequency, randomize intervals, and avoid recognizable patterns typically flagged by intrusion detection systems. Slow, randomized timing—often achieved with Nmap’s T0 or T1 timing templates—prevents bursts of traffic and allows scans to blend into normal network noise. IDS/IPS systems tuned for high-volume events may fail to detect such gradual reconnaissance. Fast SYN scans generate distinctive patterns easily identified by security monitoring tools. UDP scans, especially across all ports, produce high traffic volume and are extremely noisy. Xmas scans, although sometimes used for stealth against stateless filters, are still signature-detectable and inappropriate when stealth over time is required. Therefore, applying slow, randomized timing options aligns with CEH-approved reconnaissance techniques for evading detection while enumerating open ports.