212-89 Exam Dumps - EC Council Certified Incident Handler (ECIH v3)

Anti-forensics techniques are designed to prevent, mislead, or interfere with the incident handling process, affecting the collection, preservation, and identification phases of the forensic investigation process. These techniques include methods to erase, encrypt, or alter information, make data recovery difficult, hide data (e.g., steganography), or otherwise obstruct forensic analysis and investigation efforts. Anti-forensics can significantly challenge the efforts of incident responders and forensic investigators in establishing the facts of a security incident or crime.

Incident triage is the stage in the incident response process where the incident handler, like Mike, performs an initial assessment of the reported incident to determine its validity, severity, and potential impact. This includes analyzing the incident to verify if it is a genuine threat or a false positive. The purpose of incident triage is to prioritize incidents based on their criticality and ensure that resources are allocated effectively to address the most serious threats first. This stage is crucial for efficient incident management, as it helps in filtering out false alarms and focusing on real security incidents that require immediate attention.

Eradication is the step in the incident handling and response process where the root cause of an incident is removed, and measures are taken to close all attack vectors to prevent similar incidents in the future. After an incident has been properly contained to stop it from spreading or causing further damage, the eradication phase focuses on eliminating the source of the incident. This could involve removing malware, closing vulnerabilities, or implementing stronger security measures to address the exploitation paths used by the attacker.

In the scenario with Raven, notifying service providers and developers of affected resources is part of the actions taken to address the root cause of the incident. This ensures that any vulnerabilities or issues that contributed to the incident are fixed. By working to remove the root cause and secure the system against similar attacks, Raven is effectively implementing the eradication step of the incident handling process.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

This scenario involves a session fixation vulnerability, a well-known web application attack where an attacker forces or predicts a session identifier and then tricks a user into authenticating with that session. According to the ECIH web application security module, proper session management is essential to prevent such attacks.

Option B is correct because rotating or regenerating session tokens immediately after successful authentication ensures that any session identifier known to an attacker becomes invalid. This breaks the attack chain inherent in session fixation attacks. ECIH explicitly identifies session regeneration as a primary mitigation control.

Option A helps against automated abuse but does not address session reuse. Option C strengthens authentication but does not prevent session hijacking. Option D improves confidentiality but does not prevent fixation if the same session ID remains valid.

ECIH stresses that authentication and session management must be treated as distinct security controls. Even strong passwords cannot protect against flawed session handling. Therefore, regenerating session tokens post-login is the correct and most effective remediation.

Explanation (aligned to IH&R lifecycle):

This question is about triage/validation—determining whether what you see is truly an incident and establishing priority. The most appropriate first move is to use endpoint telemetry and behavioral analytics (A) to validate maliciousness (e.g., suspicious parent/child process chains, token manipulation, credential dumping patterns, anomalous privilege escalation, and data transfer behaviors). This supports fast, evidence-based classification and reduces unnecessary disruption. Option (C) is containment and may be required after validation or for clearly high-confidence cases, but immediately disconnecting multiple endpoints can destroy volatile evidence, break business operations, and reduce your ability to trace lateral movement patterns across hosts. Option (B) is a broad preventive change that can create outage risk and is not a validation method. Option (D) can be helpful, but it is slower and not the primary “detect and validate” action for an internal team facing active anomalies.

A disciplined approach is: validate via behavioral tooling + logs, scope affected endpoints, determine severity, then execute containment proportional to confirmed risk. That sequencing mirrors standard incident handling flow (identify → validate/triage → contain → eradicate → recover → lessons learned). When time matters, the highest-value action is the one that converts ambiguous signals into confident incident classification quickly—behavioral validation does that best.

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

Software as a Service (SaaS) offers the least amount of security responsibility for the end-user or organization, as the service provider manages the underlying infrastructure, software maintenance, security patching, and updates. Choosing a SaaS application means the colleague's organization would not be responsible for the physical servers, operating systems, or the application's security configurations, making it the best option for minimizing their security responsibilities.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

This incident involves adaptive malware embedded within an AI system, actively evolving its behavior. The ECIH malware incident handling methodology prioritizes containment and eradication of the threat before recovery actions. Restoring data without removing the malware risks immediate reinfection and continued manipulation.

Option B is correct because deploying the AI-security module directly targets the malware’s adaptive mechanisms, allowing responders to detect, contain, and eradicate the malicious logic within the AI environment. ECIH emphasizes using appropriate, context-aware security controls that match the technology stack involved in the incident. For AI-driven environments, specialized tools are necessary to counter threats that traditional controls may not detect.

Option A is premature and unsafe prior to eradication. Option C disrupts business operations without resolving the threat. Option D is a communication step that should follow containment and validation.

Therefore, neutralizing the evolved malware using the AI-security module is the correct primary step.