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

The virus described changes its own code with each execution but still performs the same actions. This is the hallmark of a Metamorphic Virus. Unlike polymorphic viruses (which use encrypted code with a changing decryptor), metamorphic viruses rewrite their own code entirely — including their decryption and execution routines — to avoid pattern detection by antivirus software.

Key characteristics of metamorphic viruses seen in the scenario:

Mutates completely on every execution.

Keeps overall functionality identical (semantics intact).

Alters its appearance and logic flow.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Types of Viruses and Obfuscation Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Metamorphic viruses modify their own code structure and appearance with each iteration, without altering their underlying behavior. This makes them more difficult to detect through signature-based mechanisms.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Polymorphic viruses encrypt themselves with a changing decryptor stub but do not change their core logic.

C: “Dravidic Virus” is not a recognized term in cybersecurity.

D: Stealth viruses hide their presence (e.g., by intercepting system calls), but do not change their code structure.

The location: operator is the least useful in providing the attacker with sensitive VPN-related information, because it does not directly relate to VPN configuration, credentials, or vulnerabilities. The location: operator finds information for a specific location, such as a city, country, or region. For example, location:paris would return results related to Paris, France. However, this operator does not help the attacker to identify or access VPN servers or clients, unless they are specifically named or indexed by their location, which is unlikely.

The other operators are more useful in providing the attacker with sensitive VPN-related information, because they can help the attacker to find pages or files that contain VPN configuration, credentials, or vulnerabilities. The intitle: operator restricts results to only the pages containing the specified term in the title. For example, intitle:vpn would return pages with VPN in their title, which may include VPN guides, manuals, or tutorials. The inurl: operator restricts the results to only the pages containing the specified word in the URL. For example, inurl:vpn would return pages with VPN in their URL, which may include VPN login portals, configuration files, or directories. The link: operator searches websites or pages that contain links to the specified website or page. For example, link:vpn.com would return pages that link to vpn.com, which may include VPN reviews, comparisons, or recommendations. References:

Google Search Operators: The Complete List (44 Advanced Operators)

Footprinting through search engines

Module 02: Footprinting and Reconnaissance

In CEH v13 Module 06: Malware Threats, stealth viruses are covered as advanced malware that can evade detection by:

Intercepting system calls related to file access.

Masking their presence in files, memory, or on disk.

Restoring original code temporarily to fool signature-based scanners.

These capabilities allow stealth viruses to:

Avoid detection by antivirus scanners.

Operate undisturbed until triggered.

Option Clarification:

A. Cavity virus: Hides in unused file space but doesn't evade as effectively.

C. File-extension virus: Exploits deceptive file names but is often detected.

D. Macro virus: Targets office documents, not highly evasive.

Correct answer is B. Stealth virus.

The attack scenario is best described as Instant Messenger Applications, and the measure that could have prevented it is verifying the sender’s identity before opening any files. Instant Messenger Applications are communication tools that allow users to exchange text, voice, video, and file messages in real time. However, they can also be used as attack vectors for spreading malware, such as viruses, worms, or Trojans, by exploiting the trust and familiarity between the users. In this scenario, the attacker compromised one of the team member’s messenger account and used it to send malicious files to the other team members, who may have opened them without suspicion, thus infecting their systems. This type of attack is also known as an instant messaging worm12.

To prevent this type of attack, the users should verify the sender’s identity before opening any files sent through instant messenger applications. This can be done by checking the sender’s profile, asking for confirmation, or using a secure channel. Additionally, the users should also follow other security tips, such as using strong passwords, updating the application software, scanning the files with antivirus software, and reporting any suspicious activity34.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Host-based Intrusion Detection Systems (HIDS) run on individual hosts and monitor activities like file access, processes, and system logs. HIDS:

Detects attacks missed by NIDS (e.g., insider threats, encrypted traffic)

Monitors integrity of system files

Works in near real-time

Requires no additional network hardware

Can be implemented at low cost

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 13: IDS, Firewalls and Honeypots → Types of IDS (HIDS vs. NIDS)

In CEH v13 Module 14: Cryptography, VPN (Virtual Private Network) technology is described as the method that allows users to securely transmit data over an insecure (public) network by establishing a secure, encrypted tunnel.

VPN Features:

Encrypts all traffic between the user's device and the target network.

Prevents session hijacking, eavesdropping, and man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks.

Common protocols: IPSec, L2TP, SSL VPN, and OpenVPN.

Option Clarification:

A. DMZ: A network segmentation strategy, not an encryption method.

B. SMB signing: Ensures integrity for SMB protocol, but not for remote tunneling.

C. VPN: Correct. Used to securely tunnel over public networks.

D. Switch network: Refers to network segmentation using switches, unrelated to tunneling.

Pretexting is defined in CEH v13 Social Engineering as an attack where the attacker fabricates a believable scenario and impersonates a trusted individual to gain sensitive information.

This differs from phishing (mass messaging), baiting (malicious incentives), and quid pro quo (exchange of favors).

A pharming attacker tries to send a web site’s traffic to a faux website controlled by the offender, typically for the aim of collection sensitive data from victims or putting in malware on their machines. Attacker tend to specialize in making look-alike ecommerce and digital banking websites to reap credentials and payment card data.

Though they share similar goals, pharming uses a special technique from phishing. “Pharming attacker are targeted on manipulating a system, instead of tricking people into reaching to a dangerous web site,” explains David Emm, principal security man of science at Kaspersky. “When either a phishing or pharming attacker is completed by a criminal, they need a similar driving issue to induce victims onto a corrupt location, however the mechanisms during which this is often undertaken are completely different.”

The CEH Footprinting and Reconnaissance module describes DNS interrogation as a valuable technique for extracting publicly available infrastructure information such as A records, MX records, NS records, and subdomains.

DNS can reveal:

Subdomains (via zone transfers, brute forcing, or enumeration)

Mail server IP addresses (MX records)

Server locations inferred from IP geolocation

However, DNS does not store authentication credentials. Usernames and passwords are protected within authentication systems and directories, not DNS records.

Therefore, option A is correct.

CEH clearly states that DNS reconnaissance is limited to infrastructure metadata, not sensitive user credentials.

Objectives of Footprinting Draw Network Map - Combining footprinting techniques with tools such as Tracert allows the attacker to create diagrammatic representations of the target organization’s network presence. Specficially, it allows attackers to draw a map or outline of the target organization’s network infrastructure to know about the actual environment that they are going to break into. These network diagrams can guide the attacker in performing an attack. (P.114/98)

Two-factor Authentication or 2FA is a user identity verification method, where two of the three possible authentication factors are combined to grant access to a website or application.1) something the user knows, 2) something the user has, or 3) something the user is.

The possible factors of authentication are:

· Something the User Knows:

This is often a password, passphrase, PIN, or secret question. To satisfy this authentication challenge, the user must provide information that matches the answers previously provided to the organization by that user, such as “Name the town in which you were born.”

· Something the User Has:

This involves entering a one-time password generated by a hardware authenticator. Users carry around an authentication device that will generate a one-time password on command. Users then authenticate by providing this code to the organization. Today, many organizations offer software authenticators that can be installed on the user’s mobile device.

· Something the User Is:

This third authentication factor requires the user to authenticate using biometric data. This can include fingerprint scans, facial scans, behavioral biometrics, and more.

For example: In internet security, the most used factors of authentication are:

something the user has (e.g., a bank card) and something the user knows (e.g., a PIN code). This is two-factor authentication. Two-factor authentication is also sometimes referred to as strong authentication, Two-Step Verification, or 2FA.

The key difference between Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) and Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) is that, as the term implies, Two-Factor Authentication utilizes a combination of two out of three possible authentication factors. In contrast, Multi-Factor Authentication could utilize two or more of these authentication factors.

In CEH v13 Cryptography, this threat is formally referred to as “Harvest Now, Decrypt Later” (HNDL). It describes a long-term cryptographic risk where adversaries intercept and store encrypted communications today, even though they cannot decrypt them with current computational capabilities. The expectation is that future quantum computers will be powerful enough to break widely used public-key cryptographic algorithms.

CEH v13 emphasizes that quantum algorithms such as Shor’s Algorithm can theoretically break RSA, DSA, and ECC by efficiently solving integer factorization and discrete logarithm problems. However, the defining feature of this threat is not the act of breaking encryption itself, but rather the strategic collection and storage of encrypted data in advance.

Option C is incomplete because it focuses only on the cryptographic mechanism rather than the threat model. Options B and D are unrelated to the scenario described and refer to quantum communication integrity issues, not long-term cryptographic exposure.

CEH v13 highlights that sensitive data with long confidentiality lifetimes—such as government records, financial data, healthcare information, and intellectual property—is especially vulnerable to this threat. As a result, organizations are encouraged to adopt quantum-resistant (post-quantum) cryptographic algorithms proactively.

Thus, Option A accurately describes the threat model and aligns with CEH v13’s treatment of future cryptographic risks.

Hashing is a one-way function—by design, it cannot be reversed. Password-cracking tools do not "reverse" the hash. Instead, they:

Generate a list of potential passwords.

Hash each candidate using the same algorithm.

Compare the result to the target hash.

If a match is found, the original password is revealed by correlation, not reversal.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Cryptography and Password Cracking

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Hash functions are one-way and irreversible. Password-cracking tools work by hashing wordlists or character combinations and comparing them to known password hashes.”

The scenario describes an injection attack involving Server Side Includes (SSI). SSI directives are instructions placed in web pages that are executed by the web server before the page is sent to the user. If user input is improperly validated and directly used in an SSI-enabled environment, attackers can inject malicious SSI directives (such as file manipulation commands).

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Server-Side Includes (SSI) Injection occurs when attackers submit specially crafted input that is included in server responses and interpreted as SSI directives.

These directives can perform dangerous actions like:

Reading sensitive files (e.g., /etc/passwd)

Deleting or modifying files

Running shell commands via #exec directive

Incorrect options:

A. Server-side template injection is related to template engines like Jinja2 or Twig.

B. Server-side JS injection applies to environments like Node.js.

C. CRLF injection manipulates HTTP headers, not SSI parsing.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: “Injection Flaws”

Subsection: “SSI Injection”

Lab Reference: CEH iLabs – Web Application Exploitation

=

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Wireshark on Windows requires WinPcap to operate. WinPcap is a packet capture library that allows network interfaces to operate in promiscuous mode, which is essential for sniffing traffic.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 8: Sniffing → Sniffing Tools → WinPcap for Windows

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

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

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

Social engineering is the term used for a broad range of malicious activities accomplished through human interactions. It uses psychological manipulation to trick users into making security mistakes or giving away sensitive information.

Social engineering attacks typically involve some form of psychological manipulation, fooling otherwise unsuspecting users or employees into handing over confidential or sensitive data. Commonly, social engineering involves email or other communication that invokes urgency, fear, or similar emotions in the victim, leading the victim to promptly reveal sensitive information, click a malicious link, or open a malicious file. Because social engineering involves a human element, preventing these attacks can be tricky for enterprises.

According to the Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Reconnaissance and Footprinting module, DNS cache snooping is a passive information-gathering technique used to determine whether a specific DNS record exists in a server’s cache. Attackers commonly use the dig +norecurse option to prevent the DNS server from querying other DNS servers, thereby revealing only cached results.

When a DNS server responds with NOERROR but does not return an answer, it indicates that the domain name itself is valid, but the requested record is not present in the DNS cache. CEH documentation explains that this situation usually occurs when no internal client has recently queried that domain, so the DNS server has no cached entry for it.

Option A is incorrect because a cached record would return a valid answer section.

Option B is incorrect because NOERROR explicitly means the DNS query was processed successfully.

Option D is incorrect because an expired or non-existent domain would typically return NXDOMAIN, not NOERROR.

CEH materials highlight that attackers use DNS cache snooping to infer user behavior, internal browsing habits, and potential target systems within an organization—making option C the correct conclusion.

CEH v13 identifies URL parameters used in dynamic SQL queries as common injection points. When user-controlled values are passed directly into database queries without validation, attackers can manipulate query logic. Injecting a test payload such as 1 OR 1=1 into the userID parameter is a standard method to determine whether the application concatenates input into SQL statements. If the page displays all user orders instead of only the authenticated user's orders, this confirms SQL injection. CEH teaches that conditional tautologies are one of the safest and most reliable ways to probe SQL vulnerabilities, especially in GET parameters. JavaScript injection (Option A) tests XSS, not SQLi. Directory traversal (Option C) targets filesystem issues, not database logic. Brute-forcing user credentials (Option D) does not test query sanitization. Therefore, modifying the userID parameter with a SQL injection payload is the correct CEH-aligned method.

QUESTION NO: 1 [Web Application Hacking]

During a red team exercise, a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) is attempting to exploit a potential vulnerability in a target organization’s web server. The CEH has completed the information gathering and footprinting phases and has mirrored the website for offline analysis. It has also been discovered that the server is vulnerable to session hijacking. Which of the following steps is most likely to be part of a successful attack methodology while minimizing the possibility of detection?

A. Hijack an active session and immediately modify server configuration files.

B. Attempt SQL injection to extract sensitive database information.

C. Perform vulnerability scanning using automated tools to identify additional weaknesses.

D. Launch a direct brute-force attack to crack the server’s administrative password.

Answer: B

According to the Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) attack methodology, once reconnaissance, footprinting, and website mirroring have been completed, the attacker proceeds cautiously to exploitation while maintaining stealth. CEH documentation emphasizes that low-noise, application-layer attacks are preferable when the objective is to minimize detection.

Option B, attempting SQL Injection, aligns directly with CEH’s Web Application Hacking module. SQL Injection is a server-side attack that can often be executed through normal-looking HTTP requests, making it less likely to trigger intrusion detection systems (IDS) or security alerts. CEH materials highlight SQL injection as a common and effective technique for extracting sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, and business-critical information without disrupting server operations.

Option A is incorrect because immediately modifying server configuration files after session hijacking significantly increases the risk of detection. CEH guidelines stress post-exploitation restraint, especially during red team operations.

Option C is not ideal at this stage because automated vulnerability scanners generate substantial traffic and are highly detectable. CEH explicitly notes that vulnerability scanning is noisy and often logged.

Option D is the least stealthy option. Brute-force attacks generate numerous failed authentication attempts, triggering security alerts and account lockouts. CEH classifies brute-force attacks as high-risk and easily detectable.

Therefore, SQL Injection represents the most effective and stealthy next step in accordance with CEH’s structured attack lifecycle.

ISAPI (Internet Server Application Programming Interface) filters are DLLs used to extend the functionality of Microsoft IIS (Internet Information Services). If unnecessary or outdated ISAPI filters are enabled, they can introduce vulnerabilities or backdoors that attackers may exploit to launch web server-based attacks.

From the CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Servers

Section: Web Server Vulnerabilities

Subsection: Common Web Server Misconfigurations

CEH v13 states:

“Unnecessary ISAPI filters and extensions should be disabled or removed, as they may introduce unneeded attack surfaces on the web server. Attackers may exploit vulnerabilities in these filters to gain unauthorized access, execute code remotely, or escalate privileges on the server.”

This is part of a broader hardening strategy to reduce the web server’s attack surface.

Incorrect Options:

A. Social engineering involves manipulating people, not software vulnerabilities.

C. Jailbreaking refers to bypassing restrictions on mobile devices.

D. Wireless attacks are unrelated to web server software components.

The Shellshock vulnerability (CVE-2014-6271) allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands via crafted environment variables in Bash. In this example, the malicious command cat /etc/passwd is executed, displaying the contents of the file (which contains system user account info).

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Quote:

“Shellshock allows remote code execution through environment variables processed by Bash. Exploits can be used to run commands like cat /etc/passwd on a vulnerable system.”

Incorrect Options:

A. No file deletion occurs.

B. It doesn’t change passwords.

C. No user addition occurs.

=

IoT devices often suffer from weak or missing encryption protocols, creating opportunities for attackers to intercept sensitive information. CEH courseware highlights that when device-to-app communication occurs in plaintext, a man-in-the-middle attack becomes one of the most effective exploitation methods. By positioning themselves between the device and the mobile application, the attacker can observe all transmitted data, including configuration updates, authentication tokens, and personal information. Tools such as Wireshark, mitmproxy, and specialized IoT interception frameworks allow testers to capture packets, decode protocols, and reconstruct application logic. The CEH curriculum stresses the importance of evaluating IoT device communication channels, because many rely on unsecured HTTP or proprietary plaintext protocols. Brute-force attempts, SQL injection, or dictionary attacks do not directly target the device–app communication pathway and would not exploit the fundamental weakness present here: lack of encryption. A MitM attack directly takes advantage of this flaw and provides comprehensive visibility into all transmitted data, making it the most effective and CEH-aligned method of exploitation.

The CEH Web Application Security module explains that race conditions occur when systems improperly handle simultaneous requests, leading to unexpected behavior. In token-based authentication systems, poor synchronization between token expiration checks and validation logic can allow attackers to exploit timing gaps.

The observed pattern—failed attempts with expired tokens followed by successful access—suggests the attacker exploited a race condition where the application inconsistently validated token state.

Option C is correct.

Option A would not involve expired tokens.

Option B is highly impractical given secure token entropy.

Option D typically succeeds without repeated failures.

CEH highlights race conditions as subtle but dangerous logic flaws.

CEH IoT security modules describe insecure network services as vulnerabilities arising when IoT devices communicate over unencrypted channels, use unauthenticated update mechanisms, or expose services that fail to validate data integrity. When operational commands and firmware updates are transmitted over HTTP without cryptographic safeguards, attackers can intercept, replay, or modify the data stream. Firmware integrity verification is a critical component of secure device lifecycle management. Without it, adversaries can perform firmware injection, allowing them remote control, persistent compromise, or sabotage of device functionality. This aligns directly with insecure network services, which CEH defines as improperly protected communication mechanisms and service interactions within IoT ecosystems. Insecure ecosystem interfaces generally relate to cloud APIs and web dashboards, insecure default settings involve weak credentials or factory configurations, and insufficient privacy protection relates to data confidentiality rather than command manipulation. The described scenario most clearly fits insecure network services.

After the attacker completes preparations, subsequent step is an effort to realize an edge within the target’s environment. a particularly common entry tactic is that the use of spearphishing emails containing an internet link or attachment. Email links usually cause sites where the target’s browser and related software are subjected to varied exploit techniques or where the APT actors plan to social engineer information from the victim which will be used later. If a successful exploit takes place, it installs an initial malware payload on the victim’s computer. Figure 2 illustrates an example of a spearphishing email that contains an attachment. Attachments are usually executable malware, a zipper or other archive containing malware, or a malicious Office or Adobe PDF (Portable Document Format) document that exploits vulnerabilities within the victim’s applications to ultimately execute malware on the victim’s computer. Once the user has opened a malicious file using vulnerable software, malware is executing on the target system. These phishing emails are often very convincing and difficult to differentiate from legitimate email messages. Tactics to extend their believability include modifying legitimate documents from or associated with the organization. Documents are sometimes stolen from the organization or their collaborators during previous exploitation operations. Actors modify the documents by adding exploits and malicious code then send them to the victims. Phishing emails are commonly sent through previously compromised email servers, email accounts at organizations associated with the target or public email services. Emails also can be sent through mail relays with modified email headers to form the messages appear to possess originated from legitimate sources. Exploitation of vulnerabilities on public-facing servers is another favorite technique of some APT groups. Though this will be accomplished using exploits for known vulnerabilities, 0-days are often developed or purchased to be used in intrusions as required .

Gaining an edge within the target environment is that the primary goal of the initial intrusion. Once a system is exploited, the attacker usually places malware on the compromised system and uses it as a jump point or proxy for further actions. Malware placed during the initial intrusion phase is usually an easy downloader, basic Remote Access Trojan or an easy shell. Figure 3 illustrates a newly infected system initiating an outbound connection to notify the APT actor that the initial intrusion attempt was successful which it’s able to accept commands.

A NULL scan is a type of TCP stealth scan where no flags are set in the TCP header. It is used to identify open or closed ports based on how the target responds to this unexpected packet.

Behavior:

If the port is closed → Target responds with RST (Reset)

If the port is open → No response (on compliant systems like Unix-based OSes)

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 03: Scanning Networks

Topic: TCP Flag Scanning

Subsection: NULL Scan

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“In a NULL scan, if a target port is closed, the system responds with an RST packet as per RFC 793. If the port is open, it typically does not respond, which allows stealthy enumeration of services.”

Incorrect Options:

A. SYN: Initiated by a SYN scan.

B. ACK: Used in ACK scans.

C/D: Not applicable for NULL scans.

F. No response occurs for open ports, not closed ones.

This question focuses on API Security, Webhooks abuse, and Webshell mitigation, all of which are addressed in the CEH v13 Web Application Hacking and Security Operations modules. The most appropriate corrective action is Option D, as it directly addresses the root causes and persistence mechanisms of the compromise.

According to CEH v13, attackers frequently exploit improper input validation in APIs and insecure webhook implementations to inject malicious payloads or gain remote command execution. Webhooks, when not properly validated, can accept malicious requests that trigger backend processes, making them a common vector for API abuse.

Input validation on all API endpoints is critical to prevent injection attacks, including command injection and SQL injection. CEH v13 explicitly emphasizes validating request parameters, headers, and payload structures to prevent malicious manipulation.

Reviewing webhook payloads ensures that only trusted sources can trigger automated actions, preventing attackers from abusing webhook functionality. This includes validating signatures, enforcing authentication, and restricting allowed payload formats.

Finally, regular scanning for webshells is essential because webshells provide persistent backdoor access. CEH v13 identifies webshell detection as a key defensive measure during incident response and post-exploitation containment.

Other options are incomplete:

A WAF alone cannot detect all webshells.

IP blocking is ineffective against spoofed or cloud-based attacks.

MFA and server hardening are valuable but do not directly address webhook abuse or existing webshells.

Therefore, Option D provides the most comprehensive, CEH v13–aligned mitigation strategy.

In CEH v13 Module 07: Evading IDS, Firewalls, and Honeypots, various honeypot detection techniques are discussed. One such method is time-based TCP fingerprinting, which is effective against Honeyd-based honeypots.

Honeyd Honeypots:

Lightweight, low-interaction honeypots.

Often respond with inconsistent or delayed TCP timestamps.

Can be fingerprinted by comparing round-trip time and TTL values to real systems.

Option Clarification:

A. VMware detection: Uses CPU/BIOS identifiers and MAC address patterns.

B. Honeyd detection: Correct — uses time-based TCP fingerprinting.

C. Snort_inline: A network-based IPS, not the context here.

D. Sebek: Used to monitor user-level activity, not related to TCP response timing.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Cryptography module explains that one of the primary challenges in encryption is secure key distribution. Asymmetric encryption, also known as public-key cryptography, was specifically designed to address this issue.

In asymmetric encryption, each entity possesses a public key and a private key. The public key can be shared openly, allowing anyone to encrypt data securely, while only the corresponding private key can decrypt it. CEH documentation highlights that this model eliminates the need to transmit secret keys over insecure channels.

Option D is correct because asymmetric encryption enables secure key exchange without prior trust.

Option B (symmetric encryption) requires a shared secret key and suffers from key distribution challenges.

Option A refers to data-at-rest protection, not key exchange.

Option C provides integrity verification, not encryption.

CEH emphasizes that asymmetric encryption underpins secure protocols such as TLS and digital certificates.

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

In CEH v13 Module 16: Cloud Computing and Container Security, Cloudborne attacks are described as threats specific to bare-metal cloud infrastructure.

Characteristics of a Cloudborne Attack:

Targets firmware-level vulnerabilities in reused physical servers.

Malware or backdoors can persist even after VM or OS reinstallation.

Can lead to compromise of new tenants or clients once servers are reallocated.

First highlighted in Project X by Eclypsium.

Option Clarification:

A. MITC: Exploits synchronization in cloud storage, not firmware.

B. Cryptojacking: Mining cryptocurrency using cloud resources.

C. Cloudborne attack: Correct — targets firmware on bare-metal cloud servers.

D. Metadata spoofing: Exploits cloud instance metadata services, unrelated to firmware.

The recommended architecture for secure web application deployment is a multi-tiered setup:

Web server in the DMZ (public-facing)

Application server on the internal network

Database server on the internal network

This design limits the exposure of critical components. Only the web server is exposed to the internet, while application and database servers are shielded by firewalls and only accessible internally.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 10: Hacking Web Servers

Quote:

“Place the web server in the DMZ and keep the application and database servers within the internal network. This reduces the attack surface and provides layered security.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Internal placement makes them inaccessible externally.

C & D. Exposing the database or all servers to the internet introduces significant risk.

=

The CEH web server attack methodology describes reconnaissance as a key phase, where testers gather publicly available information before attempting exploitation. Robots.txt is commonly used by administrators to instruct web crawlers about which directories should not be indexed. CEH emphasizes that attackers regularly review robots.txt because it often exposes sensitive directories unintentionally, providing valuable intelligence about internal structure, configuration paths, administrative pages, and potential weak points. In this scenario, the tester observes “Disallow” entries and then discovers the directories are not protected by authentication, allowing direct access to sensitive files. This falls under information gathering through exposed indexing instructions rather than directory traversal, which involves path-manipulation exploits. The tester is not altering file paths or inserting traversal sequences; instead, they are reviewing publicly available indexing instructions and discovering misconfigured access controls. This perfectly aligns with the reconnaissance phase of the CEH methodology, where attackers learn about server architecture using passive or minimally intrusive techniques.

A Boot Sector Virus infects the master boot record (MBR) of the system. When a system boots, it first loads the MBR into memory. A Boot Sector Virus takes advantage of this by moving the original MBR to a different location on the hard disk and writing itself to the original MBR location. This ensures that it is executed first during system startup.

As per CEH v13 course material:

“A boot sector virus infects the master boot record of a hard disk. It moves the original boot sector to a different location on the hard disk and replaces it with its own malicious code. When the computer is booted, the virus loads first and then hands control to the original boot sector code.”

Reference – CEH v13 Study Guide:

Module 06: Malware Threats, Section: “Types of Malware”, Subsection: “Boot Sector Viruses”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A: Describes directory virus behavior, not boot sector.

B: The virus moves MBR on the hard disk, not RAM.

D: Some viruses overwrite MBR, but most preserve the original and move it to another disk location to maintain system operability.

https://support.riverbed.com/content/support/software/steelcentral-npm/airpcap.html

Since this question refers specifically to analyzing a wireless network, it is obvious that we need an option with AirPcap (Riverbed AirPcap USB-based adapters capture 802.11 wireless traffic for analysis). Since it works with two traffic analyzers SteelCentral Packet Analyzer (Cascade Pilot) or Wireshark, the correct option would be "Wireshark with Airpcap."

NOTE: AirPcap adapters no longer available for sale effective January 1, 2018, but a question on this topic may occur on your exam.

=

In CEH v13 Module 01: Information Security Governance, PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard) is introduced as the mandatory compliance framework for organizations handling credit card transactions.

PCI-DSS Requirements Include:

Encrypting cardholder data.

Maintaining secure systems and applications.

Regular vulnerability testing and audits.

Restricting access to sensitive data.

Option Clarification:

A. FISMA: Applies to U.S. federal information systems.

B. HITECH: Related to health information privacy and HIPAA.

C. PCI-DSS: Correct for credit card companies and merchant environments.

D. SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley): Focuses on financial reporting, not card data.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Cloud Computing module emphasizes that serverless environments rely heavily on granular permission models. Attacks involving compromised APIs often succeed because functions are granted excessive privileges.

Option D is correct because enforcing function-level permissions and the principle of least privilege directly limits what a compromised function can execute. CEH documentation states this is the primary defense against serverless abuse.

Option A is beneficial but reactive.

Option B focuses on SaaS governance rather than FaaS execution control.

Option C provides visibility but does not directly prevent privilege misuse.

CEH highlights identity and access management (IAM) as critical in serverless security.

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

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

PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), and IKE (Internet Key Exchange) use Public Key Cryptography for secure communication. They utilize:

Public and private key pairs

Asymmetric encryption for key exchange

Symmetric encryption for data confidentiality (after key exchange)

These protocols ensure secure data transfer over insecure networks.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 20: Cryptography

Quote:

“Public key cryptography uses asymmetric key pairs for encryption and authentication. Protocols like PGP, SSL/TLS, and IKE rely on this to exchange keys and establish trust.”

Incorrect Options:

A & D. Digest/hash algorithms (e.g., MD5, SHA) ensure integrity, not encryption

B. Secret key refers to symmetric encryption, which is used after the public key exchange, not as the basis for these protocols