312-49v11 Exam Dumps - Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFIv11)

This question directly aligns with CHFI v11 objectives underRegulations, Policies, and Ethics, particularly laws that influence forensic investigations and corporate compliance. The law described is theSarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX), enacted in2002in response to major corporate accounting scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. CHFI v11 highlights SOX as a critical regulation governing publicly traded companies in the United States.

SOX mandates strict requirements forcorporate financial reporting, internal control assessments, executive accountability, audit independence, and record retention. Sections such asSOX Section 302require executives to personally certify the accuracy of financial statements, whileSection 404enforces internal control audits to prevent fraud. These requirements are highly relevant in forensic investigations involving financial misconduct, as investigators often rely on audit logs, financial records, and compliance documentation governed by SOX.

The other options are incorrect: PCI DSS applies to payment card data security, GLBA governs customer financial data privacy, and ECPA addresses electronic communications privacy. Therefore, consistent with CHFI v11 legal frameworks and compliance objectives, the correct law Scarlett is reviewing isSOX (Sarbanes–Oxley Act).

According to theCHFI v11 Mobile and IoT Forensicsdomain, theprimary mechanism used by telecommunications service providers to verify user identity during call setupis the use ofIMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity)andIMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity). These identifiers are fundamental to cellular network authentication and subscriber management.

TheIMSIuniquely identifies thesubscriberand is stored on the SIM card, while theIMEIuniquely identifies themobile deviceitself. During call setup, the cellular network authenticates the subscriber by validating the IMSI against the provider’s Home Location Register (HLR) or Home Subscriber Server (HSS). Simultaneously, the IMEI is checked to ensure the device is legitimate and not blacklisted. CHFI v11 highlights these identifiers as critical forensic artifacts forsubscriber attribution, call detail record (CDR) analysis, and location tracking.

The other options are incorrect because call duration and call content are not used for identity verification. Monitoring call content is also restricted due to privacy and legal constraints. Tracking location alone does not establish identity; it only provides positional data once authentication has already occurred.

CHFI v11 emphasizes thatIMSI and IMEI correlationis essential for mobile forensics investigations, enabling investigators to link calls, devices, locations, and subscribers accurately. Therefore, the correct and CHFI v11–verified mechanism for ensuring user identity during call setup isutilizing IMSI and IMEI information, makingOption Dthe correct answer.

According to the CHFI v11 objectives underEmail ForensicsandDigital Evidence Examination, investigators must be capable of extracting, converting, and analyzing email data stored in proprietary or corrupt formats. Microsoft Outlook commonly stores mailbox data inOST (Offline Storage Table)files, which can become inaccessible or corrupt during incidents such as system crashes, insider attacks, or malware infections.

Kernel for OST to PSTis a specialized forensic and eDiscovery tool designed to recover and convert OST files into accessible formats such asPST, EML, MSG, and MBOX. Its ability to export emails intoEML formatis particularly important in forensic investigations, as EML is widely supported by multiple forensic tools and email analysis platforms. CHFI v11 highlights the importance of using reliable tools that supportselective extraction, filtering, and migration, allowing investigators to isolate relevant emails, attachments, headers, and metadata while maintaining evidence integrity.

Additionally, Kernel for OST to PST supportsmigration to various email servers and web-based platforms, aligning with CHFI requirements for handling enterprise email evidence across heterogeneous environments.

The other options are unsuitable: Email Checker and ZeroBounce are email validation tools, and EmailSherlock focuses on email address investigation rather than mailbox data extraction.

Therefore, consistent with CHFI v11 best practices foremail evidence acquisition and conversion,Kernel for OST to PSTis the correct and exam-aligned answer

This question aligns with CHFI v11 objectives underNetwork and Web AttacksandNetwork Log Analysis. In digital forensics, network infrastructure logs are critical sources of evidence for detecting, analyzing, and reconstructing network-based attacks. CHFI v11 specifically emphasizes the forensic value of logs generated by network devices such asCisco switches, VPN gateways, and DNS servers.

Cisco switch logs provide information about device connections, port activity, MAC address mappings, VLAN assignments, and potential unauthorized access within the internal network. VPN logs reveal details about remote connections, including authentication attempts, user identities, IP addresses, session durations, and encrypted tunnel activity—crucial for identifying compromised credentials or unauthorized remote access. DNS server logs record domain name queries and responses, which help investigators detect command-and-control communication, data exfiltration attempts, malware beaconing, and access to malicious domains.

Together, these logs allow investigators to correlate events across the network, trace attacker movement, identify affected systems, and establish timelines of security incidents. The other options are incorrect because browser history is host-based evidence, and these logs are highly relevant to forensic investigations. Therefore, consistent with CHFI v11 network forensics principles, these logs provide insights into network traffic, device connections, and security incidents.

Within the CHFI v11 syllabus underNetwork ForensicsandLog Analysis, understandingCisco router log mnemonicsis essential for investigating network-based attacks and policy violations. Cisco devices generate structured log messages that include afacility,severity level, andmnemonic, which together describe the event detected by the device.

The mnemonic%SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGPspecifically indicates that apacket (TCP or UDP)matched anIP Access Control List (ACL)rule and was logged accordingly. The “SEC” facility denotes a security-related event, the severity level “6” represents an informational message, and “IPACCESSLOGP” confirms that the log entry was generated due to an ACL permit or deny rule matching a packet. This type of log is commonly used in forensic investigations to trace suspicious traffic, identify unauthorized access attempts, and correlate firewall or router behavior with other network logs.

Option B (IPACCESSLOGRL) refers to rate-limited ACL logging, not standard packet logging. Option A is specific to IPv6 ACL logging and does not apply unless IPv6 traffic is explicitly involved. Option D (TOOMANY) relates to excessive event conditions and is not tied to ACL packet matching.

The CHFI v11 Exam Blueprint highlightsanalyzing Cisco router and firewall logs, including ACL-based messages, as a key skill for detecting network attacks and reconstructing intrusion timelines. Therefore,%SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGPis the correct and exam-aligned answer

This scenario directly aligns with CHFI v11 objectives underData Acquisition and DuplicationandDigital Forensic Imaging and Recovery Tools. In large-scale enterprise investigations—especially within financial institutions—CHFI v11 emphasizes the importance of tools that supportfull disk imaging, rapid system recovery, and granular restorationto ensure both forensic analysis and business continuity.

Macrium Reflect Serveris specifically designed for server environments and supports full image-level backups, differential and incremental imaging, and selective file and folder recovery from forensic images. This allows investigators to restore entire systems to operational status quickly while simultaneously extracting specific files, logs, or configuration data needed to assess breach impact and verify data integrity. Importantly, Macrium Reflect supports both physical and virtual systems, making it suitable for complex enterprise infrastructures.

Snagit and Ezvid are multimedia screen-recording tools with no forensic or recovery capability, while VMware vSphere Hypervisor is a virtualization platform rather than a forensic imaging or recovery solution. CHFI v11 stresses that appropriate tool selection is critical to preserving evidence integrity while minimizing operational downtime. Therefore,Macrium Reflect Serveris the most suitable and CHFI-aligned tool for rapid, reliable, and forensically sound system and data recovery in this scenario.

This question aligns with CHFI v11 objectives underOperating System Forensics, specificallyWindows Security Event Log analysis and object access auditing. In Windows systems,Event ID 4663is generated whenan attempt is made to access an object(such as a file, folder, registry key, or other securable object) and detailed auditing is enabled. CHFI v11 emphasizes the importance of this event in identifying unauthorized or suspicious access attempts to sensitive system resources.

Event ID 4663 provides granular information aboutthe type of access requested, such as read, write, modify, delete, or permission changes. This makes it particularly valuable in forensic investigations, as it allows investigators to determine whether a user or process attempted to modify critical system objects, which is often indicative of malicious activity, privilege abuse, or insider threats.

While deletion events are logged separately (e.g., Event ID 4660), and general logon activity is captured by different event IDs (such as 4624), Event ID 4663 focuses specifically onobject access attempts. Option C is partially descriptive but too broad; the defining characteristic of Event ID 4663 is theattempt to open an object with specific access rights, making optionAthe most precise and CHFI v11–aligned answer.

According to theCHFI v11 Mobile Device and Database Forensics objectives, SQLite databases are extensively used byAndroid, iOS, and many mobile applicationsto store structured data such as SMS messages, call logs, contacts, emails, browser history, and application data. Proper extraction of this data requires usingSQLite-aware forensic methodsto preserve data integrity and ensure completeness.

The.dump commandin SQLite is a standard and forensically sound method used to extract theentire database schema and contentsinto a readable SQL text format. This command exports table structures and records, allowing investigators to reconstruct the database accurately and analyze it without altering the original evidence. CHFI v11 highlights the use ofcommand-line SQLite utilitiesas reliable tools for examining mobile database artifacts recovered from logical acquisitions, physical acquisitions, or memory dumps.

Option B is incorrect because .extract is not a standard SQLite command. Option C violates forensic best practices, as raw memory data must be parsed using appropriate database tools to interpret SQLite structures correctly. Option D refers to analyzing a specific file but does not describe theextraction process itself, making it incomplete as a procedural answer.

CHFI v11 emphasizes that investigators must useproper database extraction techniques, such as SQLite command-line tools or validated forensic software, to ensure evidence admissibility and accurate interpretation. Therefore, using theSQLite .dump commandis the correct and CHFI-aligned approach, makingOption Athe correct answer.