312-50v13 ECCouncil Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13) Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

http://www.carnal0wnage.com/papers/LSO-Hping2-Basics.pdf

Most ping programs use ICMP echo requests and wait for echo replies to come back to test connectivity. Hping2 allows us to do the same testing using any IP packet, including ICMP, UDP, and TCP. This can be helpful since nowadays most firewalls or routers block ICMP. Hping2, by default, will use TCP, but, if you still want to send an ICMP scan, you can. We send ICMP scans using the -1 (one) mode. Basically the syntax will be hping2 -1 IPADDRESS

[root@localhost hping2-rc3]# hping2 -1 192.168.0.100

HPING 192.168.0.100 (eth0 192.168.0.100): icmp mode set, 28 headers + 0 data bytes

len=46 ip=192.168.0.100 ttl=128 id=27118 icmp_seq=0 rtt=14.9 ms

len=46 ip=192.168.0.100 ttl=128 id=27119 icmp_seq=1 rtt=0.5 ms

len=46 ip=192.168.0.100 ttl=128 id=27120 icmp_seq=2 rtt=0.5 ms

len=46 ip=192.168.0.100 ttl=128 id=27121 icmp_seq=3 rtt=1.5 ms

len=46 ip=192.168.0.100 ttl=128 id=27122 icmp_seq=4 rtt=0.9 ms

— 192.168.0.100 hping statistic —

5 packets tramitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max = 0.5/3.7/14.9 ms

[root@localhost hping2-rc3]#

Static Network Address Translation (Static NAT) allows a single private IP address to be mapped to a single public IP address. This one-to-one mapping ensures that the same internal machine is always reachable through the same external IP address, which is crucial for "server publishing" — making internal servers (e.g., web servers, FTP servers) accessible from the internet.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 03: Scanning Networks

Topic: Network Address Translation

Section: Types of NAT

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Static NAT provides a fixed translation of a private IP address to a public IP address. It is commonly used when an internal server must always be accessible from the Internet using a consistent IP address — this is known as server publishing.”

Incorrect Options:

A. Overloading PAT: Multiple private IPs share a single public IP using port numbers — not suited for static mappings.

B. Dynamic PAT: Similar to overloading; used for outbound traffic only.

C. Dynamic NAT: Assigns a public IP from a pool; the mapping can change, not suitable for server publishing.

Appropriately controlling admittance to web content is significant for running a safe web worker. Index crossing or Path Traversal is a HTTP assault which permits aggressors to get to limited catalogs and execute orders outside of the web worker’s root registry.

Web workers give two primary degrees of security instruments

Access Control Lists (ACLs)

Root index

An Access Control List is utilized in the approval cycle. It is a rundown which the web worker’s manager uses to show which clients or gatherings can get to, change or execute specific records on the worker, just as other access rights.

The root registry is a particular index on the worker record framework in which the clients are kept. Clients can’t get to anything over this root.

For instance: the default root registry of IIS on Windows is C:\Inetpub\wwwroot and with this arrangement, a client doesn’t approach C:\Windows yet approaches C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\news and some other indexes and documents under the root catalog (given that the client is confirmed by means of the ACLs).

The root index keeps clients from getting to any documents on the worker, for example, C:\WINDOWS/system32/win.ini on Windows stages and the/and so on/passwd record on Linux/UNIX stages.

This weakness can exist either in the web worker programming itself or in the web application code.

To play out a registry crossing assault, all an assailant requires is an internet browser and some information on where to aimlessly discover any default documents and registries on the framework.

What an assailant can do if your site is defenseless

With a framework defenseless against index crossing, an aggressor can utilize this weakness to venture out of the root catalog and access different pieces of the record framework. This may enable the assailant to see confined documents, which could give the aggressor more data needed to additional trade off the framework.

Contingent upon how the site access is set up, the aggressor will execute orders by mimicking himself as the client which is related with “the site”. Along these lines everything relies upon what the site client has been offered admittance to in the framework.

Illustration of a Directory Traversal assault by means of web application code

In web applications with dynamic pages, input is generally gotten from programs through GET or POST solicitation techniques. Here is an illustration of a HTTP GET demand URL

GET http://test.webarticles.com/show.asp?view=oldarchive.html HTTP/1.1

Host: test.webarticles.com

With this URL, the browser requests the dynamic page show.asp from the server and with it also sends the parameter view with the value of oldarchive.html. When this request is executed on the web server, show.asp retrieves the file oldarchive.html from the server’s file system, renders it and then sends it back to the browser which displays it to the user. The attacker would assume that show.asp can retrieve files from the file system and sends the following custom URL.

GET http://test.webarticles.com/show.asp?view=../../../../../Windows/system.ini HTTP/1.1

Host: test.webarticles.com

This will cause the dynamic page to retrieve the file system.ini from the file system and display it to the user. The expression ../ instructs the system to go one directory up which is commonly used as an operating system directive. The attacker has to guess how many directories he has to go up to find the Windows folder on the system, but this is easily done by trial and error.

Example of a Directory Traversal attack via web server

Apart from vulnerabilities in the code, even the web server itself can be open to directory traversal attacks. The problem can either be incorporated into the web server software or inside some sample script files left available on the server.

The vulnerability has been fixed in the latest versions of web server software, but there are web servers online which are still using older versions of IIS and Apache which might be open to directory traversal attacks. Even though you might be using a web server software version that has fixed this vulnerability, you might still have some sensitive default script directories exposed which are well known to hackers.

For example, a URL request which makes use of the scripts directory of IIS to traverse directories and execute a command can be

GET http://server.com/scripts/..%5c../Windows/System32/cmd.exe?/c+dir+c:\ HTTP/1.1

Host: server.com

The request would return to the user a list of all files in the C:\ directory by executing the cmd.exe command shell file and run the command dir c:\ in the shell. The %5c expression that is in the URL request is a web server escape code which is used to represent normal characters. In this case %5c represents the character \.

Newer versions of modern web server software check for these escape codes and do not let them through. Some older versions however, do not filter out these codes in the root directory enforcer and will let the attackers execute such commands.

The hacker could have used the technique of manipulating white spaces in SQL queries to bypass signature detection. This technique involves inserting, removing, or replacing white spaces in SQL queries with other characters or symbols that are either ignored or interpreted as white spaces by the SQL engine, but not by the signature-based IDS. This way, the hacker can alter the appearance of the query and evade the pattern matching of the IDS, while preserving the functionality and logic of the query. For example, the hacker could replace the space character with a tab character, a newline character, a comment symbol, or a URL-encoded value, such as %2012.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

A. Utilizing the char encoding function to convert hexadecimal and decimal values into characters that pass-through SQL engine parsing: This option is not feasible because the char encoding function is not supported by all SQL engines, and it may not be able to convert all hexadecimal and decimal values into valid characters. Moreover, the char encoding function may not be able to bypass the signature detection of the IDS, as it may still match the keywords or syntax of the SQL query3.

B. Using the URL encoding method to replace characters with their ASCII codes in hexadecimal form: This option is not effective because the URL encoding method is not applicable to SQL queries, as it is designed for encoding special characters in URLs. The URL encoding method may not be able to replace all characters with their ASCII codes, and it may not be able to preserve the functionality and logic of the SQL query. Furthermore, the URL encoding method may not be able to evade the signature detection of the IDS, as it may still match the keywords or syntax of the SQL query4.

C. Implementing sophisticated matches such as “OR ‘john’ = john" in place of classical matches like “OR 1-1”: This option is not advanced because it is a common and basic SQL injection technique that does not involve any evasion or obfuscation. This technique involves injecting a logical expression that is always true, such as “OR ‘john’ = john” or “OR 1-1”, to bypass the authentication or authorization checks of the SQL query. However, this technique may not be able to bypass the signature detection of the IDS, as it may easily match the keywords or syntax of the SQL query.

Enumeration is the process of extracting usernames, shares, services, and other system-specific information from a target system. Tools used for enumeration include:

B. USER2SID: Resolves a username to its associated Security Identifier (SID).

D. SID2USER: Resolves an SID back to the corresponding username.

E. DumpSec: A powerful GUI tool used to enumerate users, shares, and permissions on Windows systems.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Section: NetBIOS and Windows Enumeration Tools

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“USER2SID and SID2USER are classic tools used to map usernames to SIDs and vice versa during Windows enumeration. DumpSec can enumerate user accounts, group memberships, and shared resources on systems with open permissions.”

Incorrect Options:

A. SolarWinds: Primarily a network performance monitoring tool, not designed for enumeration.

C. Cheops: A network mapping tool, not an enumeration utility.

OSINT-based reconnaissance includes using search engines to identify publicly exposed cloud assets. CEH highlights Google dorking as a passive method to reveal S3 buckets indexed in search engines through patterns such as site:s3.amazonaws.com or keyword-based queries.

On Linux and UNIX-like systems, files or directories that begin with a period (.) are considered hidden. These files do not appear by default when a user runs the ls command, unless explicitly instructed to show hidden files using ls -a.

Example:

File named .hiddenfile will not appear with a simple ls command.

To view it, use: ls -a

This is commonly used for configuration files (e.g., .bashrc, .profile) and also by attackers or malicious users who want to conceal their scripts or payloads.

Incorrect Options:

A. Exclamation mark (!) is used in shell history and command expansion, not for hiding files.

B. Underscore (_) is a valid filename character but does not hide files.

C. Tilde (~) represents the current user's home directory; not used for hiding.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 06: Malware Threats

Section: “Tactics to Hide Malware Files in the OS”

Lab: CEH Engage — Creating and Hiding Files in Linux

===========

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

The Security Account Manager (SAM) file on Windows contains user account information, including password hashes. Hackers target this file to extract credentials for offline cracking using tools like L0phtCrack or Cain & Abel.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 4: Enumeration

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“The SAM file stores hashed user credentials. If attackers gain access to it, they can extract password hashes and perform brute-force or dictionary attacks offline.”

Common locations:

C:\Windows\System32\config\SAM

C:\Windows\Repair\SAM

In CEH v13 Module 03: Scanning Networks, service version detection is achieved using the -sV option in Nmap.

-sV: Enables version detection of open ports by sending probes to determine the service name and version (e.g., Apache 2.4.49).

Helps identify potential vulnerabilities in specific software versions.

Option Clarification:

A. -SN: Ping scan (host discovery only).

B. -SX: Invalid/undefined option.

C. -sV: Correct option for service version detection.

D. -SF: Sends FIN packets (used in stealth scans), not for version discovery.

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.

Wireless network assessment determines the vulnerabilities in an organization’s wireless networks. In the past, wireless networks used weak and defective data encryption mechanisms. Now, wireless network standards have evolved, but many networks still use weak and outdated security mechanisms and are open to attack. Wireless network assessments try to attack wireless authentication mechanisms and gain unauthorized access. This type of assessment tests wireless networks and identifies rogue networks that may exist within an organization’s perimeter. These assessments audit client-specified sites with a wireless network. They sniff wireless network traffic and try to crack encryption keys. Auditors test other network access if they gain access to the wireless network.

Expanding your network capabilities are often done well using wireless networks, but it also can be a source of harm to your data system . Deficiencies in its implementations or configurations can allow tip to be accessed in an unauthorized manner.This makes it imperative to closely monitor your wireless network while also conducting periodic Wireless Network assessment.

It identifies flaws and provides an unadulterated view of exactly how vulnerable your systems are to malicious and unauthorized accesses.

Identifying misconfigurations and inconsistencies in wireless implementations and rogue access points can improve your security posture and achieve compliance with regulatory frameworks.

Network Access Control (NAC) solutions often authenticate only the first device connected to a port. CEH explains that attackers can insert a rogue device behind an already authenticated host, bypassing NAC checks. This creates a transparent bridge that forwards legitimate traffic while injecting attacker-controlled communications.

The TCP three-way handshake is the foundational mechanism used to establish a reliable connection between two devices. The sequence is as follows:

The client sends a SYN (synchronize) packet to the server to initiate the connection.

The server replies with a SYN-ACK (synchronize-acknowledge) packet.

The client sends an ACK (acknowledge) packet back to the server.

Therefore, the connection starts with a SYN packet from the client.

Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) enumeration involves querying devices on the network for information such as routing tables, interface statistics, and system details.

Useful tools include:

A. SNMPUtil: A command-line Microsoft utility for sending SNMP requests.

B. SNScan: Tool from Foundstone for SNMP scanning and enumeration.

C. SNMPScan: Lightweight tool for scanning networks for SNMP-enabled devices.

D. SolarWinds IP Network Browser: A commercial tool for graphical SNMP enumeration.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 4: Enumeration

Subsection: SNMP Enumeration Tools

Incorrect Option:

E. NMap can detect SNMP services, but is not specialized for SNMP enumeration like the others.

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

This is a fairly simple question. You must to understand what a subnet mask is and how it works.

A subnetwork or subnet is a logical subdivision of an IP network.The practice of dividing a network into two or more networks is called subnetting.

Computers that belong to the same subnet are addressed with an identical most-significant bit-group in their IP addresses. This results in the logical division of an IP address into two fields: the network number or routing prefix and the rest field or host identifier. The rest field is an identifier for a specific host or network interface.

The routing prefix may be expressed in Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) notation written as the first address of a network, followed by a slash character (/), and ending with the bit-length of the prefix. For example, 198.51.100.0/24 is the prefix of the Internet Protocol version 4 network starting at the given address, having 24 bits allocated for the network prefix, and the remaining 8 bits reserved for host addressing. Addresses in the range 198.51.100.0 to 198.51.100.255 belong to this network. The IPv6 address specification 2001:db8::/32 is a large address block with 296 addresses, having a 32-bit routing prefix.

For IPv4, a network may also be characterized by its subnet mask or netmask, which is the bitmask that when applied by a bitwise AND operation to any IP address in the network, yields the routing prefix. Subnet masks are also expressed in dot-decimal notation like an address. For example, 255.255.255.0 is the subnet mask for the prefix 198.51.100.0/24.

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.

CEH v13 highlights that multi-vector DDoS attacks require multi-layer DDoS mitigation services, often cloud-based, capable of analyzing, filtering, and scrubbing traffic across network, transport, and application layers. These providers maintain massive bandwidth capacity, global scrubbing centers, and behavioral analysis engines that distinguish legitimate sessions from malicious floods. SYN floods and HTTP GET floods require different mitigation techniques simultaneously, which typical firewalls or WAFs cannot handle without dropping legitimate traffic. Blocking SYN packets (Option A) would disrupt normal users. A WAF (Option C) handles only Layer 7 traffic and does not mitigate network-layer volumetric attacks. Increasing bandwidth (Option D) is ineffective against large botnet attacks. Therefore, deploying a multi-layer cloud DDoS protection service is the most effective solution for resilient, real-time mitigation.

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.”

A SYN flood attack is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that exploits the TCP handshake process by sending a large number of SYN requests to the target server, without completing the connection. This consumes the connection state tables on the server, preventing it from accepting new connections. The attacker has crafted an automated botnet to simultaneously send ‘s’ SYN packets per second to the server. The server can handle ‘f’ SYN packets per second without any performance issues. If ‘s’ exceeds ‘f’, the network infrastructure begins to show signs of overload. The system’s response time increases exponentially (24k), where ‘k’ represents each additional SYN packet above the ‘f’ limit.

Considering ‘s=500’ and different ‘f’ values, the scenario that is most likely to cause the server to experience overload and significantly increased response times is the one where ‘f=420’. This is because ‘s’ is greater than ‘f’ by 80 packets per second, which means the server cannot handle the incoming traffic and will eventually run out of resources. The response time shoots up (2480 = 281,474,976,710,656 times the normal response time), indicating a system overload.

The other scenarios are less likely or less severe than the one where ‘f=420’. Option A has ‘f=510’, which is greater than ‘s’, so the system stays stable and the response time remains unaffected. Option B has ‘f=495’, which is less than ‘s’ by 5 packets per second, so the response time drastically rises (245 = 32 times the normal response time), indicating a probable system overload, but not as extreme as option D. Option C has ‘f=505’, which is less than ‘s’ by 5 packets per second, so the response time increases but not as drastically (245 = 32 times the normal response time), and the system might still function, albeit slowly. References:

SYN flood DDoS attack | Cloudflare

SYN flood - Wikipedia

What Is a SYN Flood Attack? | F5

What is a SYN flood attack and how to prevent it? | NETSCOUT

Hashing algorithms are specifically designed to ensure data integrity. A hash function takes an input and returns a fixed-length string, called a hash or message digest. Even a small change in the input results in a completely different hash, making it useful for detecting tampering.

Common hashing algorithms include:

MD5 (now obsolete for secure uses)

SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3

HMAC (Hashed Message Authentication Code)

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 20: Cryptography

Topic: Hash Functions and Data Integrity

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Hashing algorithms provide integrity by generating a unique digital fingerprint of data. Any alteration in the message content will result in a different hash value, indicating that the integrity has been compromised.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Symmetric algorithms provide confidentiality.

B: Asymmetric algorithms provide confidentiality and authentication.

D: "Integrity algorithms" is not a formal cryptographic term.

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.

These tools are all Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack tools that coordinate large numbers of systems (bots) to flood target networks or services:

Trinoo – UDP flood-based DDoS tool

TFN2k (Tribe Flood Network 2000) – Supports ICMP, SYN, and other attack types

WinTrinoo – Windows variant of Trinoo

Stacheldraht – Combines features of Trinoo and TFN with encryption and auto-updating

T-Sight – DDoS control tool

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 9: Denial-of-Service Attacks

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“These tools are classic examples of distributed DoS platforms used by attackers to launch coordinated flood attacks using compromised hosts.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Not all tools were developed by the same group.

B: Not typically used by defenders.

D/E: These tools are cross-platform (some run on Linux, others on Windows).

CEH materials describe RDDoS (Ransom DDoS) attacks as threat-driven extortion campaigns where attackers demand payment and demonstrate capability by launching a short-lived DDoS burst. The purpose is to intimidate the victim into paying before a larger, sustained attack begins. The attack described uses HTTP floods with incomplete POST requests—an application-layer DDoS technique that consumes server resources by forcing the target to hold open connections. This kind of demonstration followed by an extortion email aligns precisely with RDDoS behavior. DRDoS attacks involve reflection/amplification through third-party servers, which is not occurring here. Pulse wave attacks use timed bursts and do not involve extortion, while recursive GET floods do not match the incomplete POST behavior. Therefore, the correct classification is RDDoS.

Cloud-based DDoS mitigation services provide upstream traffic scrubbing, detecting and filtering high-volume attacks such as DNS amplification and HTTP floods before the traffic reaches the victim’s network. These services use distributed infrastructures capable of handling multi-vector attacks that surpass the capacity of traditional on-premises firewalls and IDS. Traffic scrubbing centers distinguish legitimate traffic from malicious traffic, allowing normal operations to continue without service disruption.

SMTP enumeration involves probing a mail server to gather information about users and configurations. Two important SMTP commands used in enumeration are:

VRFY: Verifies whether a particular email address or user ID exists on the mail server.

EXPN: Reveals the actual addresses behind a mailing list or alias.

These commands allow attackers or penetration testers to enumerate valid user accounts or group memberships, which can later be targeted for phishing, spam, or brute-force attacks.

Incorrect Options:

B. Daily outgoing message limits are not typically disclosed via SMTP.

C. RCPT TO is used to designate a message recipient, but it doesn't enumerate open ports.

D. Mail proxy addresses are not revealed directly via SMTP enumeration.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 04: Enumeration

Section: “SMTP Enumeration Techniques”

Tool Reference: smtp-user-enum, Netcat

===========

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

To prevent networks from sniffing attacks, organizations and individual users should keep away from applications using insecure protocols, like basic HTTP authentication, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), and Telnet. Instead, secure protocols such as HTTPS, Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP), and Secure Shell (SSH) should be preferred. In case there is a necessity for using any insecure protocol in any application, all the data transmission should be encrypted. If required, VPN (Virtual Private Networks) can be used to provide secure access to users.

NOTE: I want to note that the wording "best option" is valid only for the EC-Council's exam since the other options will not help against sniffing or will only help from some specific attack vectors.

The sniffing attack surface is huge. To protect against it, you will need to implement a complex of measures at all levels of abstraction and apply controls at the physical, administrative, and technical levels. However, encryption is indeed the best option of all, even if your data is intercepted - an attacker cannot understand it.

CEH v13 explains that Side-Channel Attacks exploit physical characteristics of cryptographic devices—such as power consumption, timing variations, electromagnetic leakage, or acoustic emissions—to infer confidential data like encryption keys. These attacks do not break the cryptographic algorithm itself but instead analyze unintended signals produced during computation. The scenario describes a classic power analysis and timing analysis attack, where the attacker monitors fluctuations during encryption operations on a smart card. CEH details how Differential Power Analysis (DPA) and Simple Power Analysis (SPA) allow attackers to extract secret keys by statistically correlating measured power traces to cryptographic operations. This type of attack is extremely dangerous because it bypasses mathematical strength and targets hardware implementation flaws. Options A, C, and D do not relate to side-channel exploitation. CEH specifically categorizes this method as observing hardware emissions to deduce secrets, making Option B the most accurate match.

This question shows a classic example of an IDOR vulnerability. Rob substitutes Ned's name in the "name" parameter and if the developer has not fixed this vulnerability, then Rob will gain access to Ned's account. Below you will find more detailed information about IDOR vulnerability.

Insecure direct object references (IDOR) are a cybersecurity issue that occurs when a web application developer uses an identifier for direct access to an internal implementation object but provides no additional access control and/or authorization checks. For example, an IDOR vulnerability would happen if the URL of a transaction could be changed through client-side user input to show unauthorized data of another transaction.

Most web applications use simple IDs to reference objects. For example, a user in a database will usually be referred to via the user ID. The same user ID is the primary key to the database column containing user information and is generated automatically. The database key generation algorithm is very simple: it usually uses the next available integer. The same database ID generation mechanisms are used for all other types of database records.

The approach described above is legitimate but not recommended because it could enable the attacker to enumerate all users. If it’s necessary to maintain this approach, the developer must at least make absolutely sure that more than just a reference is needed to access resources. For example, let’s say that the web application displays transaction details using the following URL:

https://www.example.com/transaction.php?id=74656

A malicious hacker could try to substitute the id parameter value 74656 with other similar values, for example:

https://www.example.com/transaction.php?id=74657

The 74657 transaction could be a valid transaction belonging to another user. The malicious hacker should not be authorized to see it. However, if the developer made an error, the attacker would see this transaction and hence we would have an insecure direct object reference vulnerability.