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

This scenario aligns with CHFI v11 objectives underComputer Forensics FundamentalsandInsider Threat and Identity Theft Forensics. One of the defining characteristics of an insider threat is that the attacker already possessesauthorized or legitimate accessto internal systems, applications, or sensitive data. CHFI v11 emphasizes that insider attacks often bypass perimeter defenses because the malicious activity originates from trusted accounts, internal IP ranges, or authenticated sessions.

If sensitive data is altered from within the organization’s network using valid credentials, it strongly suggests insider involvement. Insiders may include disgruntled employees, contractors, or partners who misuse their access privileges intentionally or unintentionally. This type of breach is often detected through anomalies in user behavior, access logs, privilege misuse, or violations of least-privilege principles.

The other options point to external attack indicators. Social engineering typically targets users from outside the network, known external IP addresses suggest external threat actors, and DDoS attacks are characteristic of external disruption rather than internal data manipulation. CHFI v11 highlights that distinguishing insiders from external attackers is critical for attribution, legal action, and remediation. Therefore, legitimate internal access to systems and data is the strongest indicator that the breach was carried out by an insider.

Within the CHFI v11 curriculum, verifying theintegrity of digital evidenceis a core responsibility of a forensic investigator. The most reliable method to determine whether a file has been tampered with is by examining itscryptographic hash value. A hash value (such as MD5 or SHA-256) is a fixed-length digital fingerprint generated from the file’s contents. Even the smallest change to the file—whether intentional or accidental—will produce a completely different hash value, making hash comparison a definitive method for detecting manipulation.

File system logs (Option A) can help reconstruct timelines by showing access or modification events, but logs can be deleted, altered, or incomplete and do not directly validate file content integrity. Hidden attributes or alternate data streams (Option B) are indicators of possible anti-forensics techniques, yet their presence does not confirm that the primary file data was altered. Access Control Lists (Option C) only describe permission settings and ownership, not whether the file itself was modified.

According to the CHFI v11 objectives underDigital Evidence,Data Acquisition, andEvidence Validation, investigators must calculate and verify hash values during acquisition and analysis to maintainchain of custody, ensureevidence integrity, and supportlegal admissibility. This makes hash examination the most appropriate and forensically sound choice in this scenario

This scenario aligns with CHFI v11 objectives underStandards and Best Practices Related to Computer Forensics, specifically theENFSI Best Practices for the Forensic Examination of Digital Technology. According to ENFSI guidelines, once evidence has been seized and secured, a structuredlaboratory assessmentmust be conducted before and during analysis. This phase focuses on evaluating exhibits, determining examination priorities, and maintaining detailed documentation of all items—whether analyzed immediately or deferred.

Maintaining records of both analyzed and non-analyzed exhibits is a key ENFSI requirement, as it ensures transparency, traceability, and accountability throughout the forensic process. CHFI v11 emphasizes that proper documentation allows investigators to track investigative progress, justify examination decisions, and demonstrate that no evidence was overlooked or mishandled. This practice also supports effective case management and preserves the integrity and admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings.

The other options describe different forensic phases: case evaluation occurs earlier at a strategic level, scene assessment applies to on-site evidence handling, and data acquisition refers specifically to extraction activities. In contrast, documenting and prioritizing exhibits in a controlled environment is a core function of thelaboratory assessment, making option C the correct ENFSI-aligned answer.

According to theCHFI v11 Operating System Forensicscurriculum, timestamp manipulation is a commonanti-forensics techniqueused by attackers to obscure activity timelines. OnNTFS file systems, each file maintains multiple sets of timestamps—such as$STANDARD_INFORMATIONand$FILE_NAMEattributes—stored within theMaster File Table (MFT). Discrepancies between these timestamp sets are strong indicators oftimestamp tampering.

analyzeMFTis a specialized forensic tool designed explicitly to parse and analyze theNTFS Master File Table. CHFI v11 highlights MFT analysis as a critical method for detectingtime-stomping attacks, where attackers alter file timestamps using utilities like timestomp. analyzeMFT allows investigators to compare multiple timestamp attributes, identify anomalies, reconstruct timelines, and detect inconsistencies that standard file system views cannot reveal.

The other tools are not appropriate for this task.Regshotis used to compare Windows Registry snapshots,OSForensicsis a general forensic suite but is not specifically optimized for low-level MFT timestamp comparison, andProcess Exploreris a live system monitoring tool focused on running processes rather than file system metadata.

CHFI v11 explicitly emphasizesNTFS MFT analysisas the authoritative method for identifying manipulated timestamps. Therefore, the most accurate and CHFI-aligned tool for detecting timestamp modifications on NTFS file systems isanalyzeMFT, makingOption Athe correct answer.

According to the CHFI v11 objectives underSetting Up a Computer Forensics LabandEnsuring Quality Assurance, maintaining strict control over who can access the forensic laboratory is a fundamental security requirement. The scenario described clearly aligns withphysical access considerations, which focus on controlling, monitoring, and documenting entry into the forensic facility. Recording visitor details such as identity, time of entry, and purpose of visit ensures accountability and helps protect sensitive evidence, forensic tools, and investigation data from unauthorized access or tampering.

CHFI v11 emphasizes that forensic labs must implementvisitor logs, access authorization procedures, and monitoring mechanismsas part of best practices. These measures directly support thechain of custodyby demonstrating that evidence was only accessible to authorized individuals, which is essential for legal admissibility. In the event of an audit or court proceeding, access records can be used to prove that evidence integrity was preserved throughout the investigation lifecycle.

Human resource considerations (Option A) relate to staffing, training, and role assignments, not visitor access. Work area considerations (Option B) address workspace layout and equipment placement. Physical and structural design considerations (Option D) involve building architecture and security infrastructure such as locks or surveillance systems, but not the administrative tracking of visitors.

Therefore, in accordance with CHFI v11 forensic lab security guidelines,physical access considerationsbest describe the security control being implemented

According to the CHFI v11 curriculum and Exam Blueprint v4, theeDiscovery processinvolves multiple specialized roles, each with clearly defined responsibilities to ensure evidence is collected, preserved, processed, and reviewed in a forensically sound manner. The role described in this scenario aligns specifically with that of aneDiscovery software expert.

An eDiscovery software expert is responsible for thedeployment, configuration, validation, and maintenance of forensic and eDiscovery toolsused during evidence collection and analysis. This includes ensuring that tools used for acquiring emails, files, logs, and system artifacts are properly configured for the target environment, function correctly throughout the investigation, and comply with forensic best practices. CHFI v11 emphasizes the importance of tool reliability, validation, and proper configuration to maintainevidence integrity and legal admissibility.

Other roles listed are not appropriate in this context. An eDiscovery attorney (Option A) focuses on legal oversight, scope definition, and compliance. Processing personnel (Option B) handle data normalization, indexing, and preparation after collection. Review personnel (Option C) analyze processed data for relevance and privilege. None of these roles are responsible for tool deployment or maintenance.

Therefore, based on CHFI v11 eDiscovery role definitions and responsibilities, the correct and exam-aligned answer isAn eDiscovery software expert

According to theCHFI v11 Web Application Forensics and WAF module, the primary function of aWeb Application Firewall (WAF)is toinspect, monitor, and filter HTTP/HTTPS trafficbetween a web application and its users. Unlike traditional network firewalls, which operate at the network or transport layer, WAFs function at theapplication layer (Layer 7)and are specifically designed to protect web applications from attacks such asSQL injection, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), command injection, file inclusion, parameter tampering, and cookie poisoning.

WAFs such asModSecurityanalyze web requests and responses usingrule-based logic, signatures, anomaly detection, and behavioral analysis. CHFI v11 emphasizes that WAF logs are critical forensic artifacts, as they record blocked requests, rule violations, payload details, source IP addresses, timestamps, and attack patterns. These logs allow investigators to detect, reconstruct, and attribute web-based attacks during forensic investigations.

The other options do not describe the primary function of a WAF.Encryption of web trafficis handled by SSL/TLS, not WAFs.DDoS protectionis typically managed by network-level or cloud-based mitigation systems, although some WAFs may offer limited support.System log monitoringis the role of SIEM solutions, not WAFs.

Therefore, as defined in CHFI v11, the core purpose of a Web Application Firewall isinspecting and filtering HTTP traffic to protect web applications, makingOption Athe correct and verified answer.

In CHFI v11,system behavior analysisis a critical component ofmalware forensics, particularly when investigating how malicious code interacts with a compromised Windows system after execution.Process Monitor (Procmon), a Sysinternals tool, is explicitly aligned with CHFI objectives related tomonitoring processes, registry access, file system changes, and thread activityduring dynamic analysis.

The defining feature that makes Process Monitor invaluable in forensic investigations is its ability tocapture extremely detailed information about each operation, includinginput and output parameterssuch as file paths accessed, registry keys queried or modified, result codes, stack traces, process IDs, thread IDs, and timestamps. This granular visibility allows investigators to trace malware execution flow, identify persistence mechanisms, detect configuration changes, and reconstruct attacker behavior.

Option B is incorrect because Process Monitor does not focus on real-time network traffic analysis; such functionality is handled by tools like Wireshark. Options C and D are also incorrect because Process Monitor is amonitoring and analysis tool, not a remediation or antivirus solution. It does not remove files or quarantine processes.

The CHFI v11 Exam Blueprint emphasizessystem behavior analysis, including monitoringregistry artifacts, processes, services, loaded DLLs, and system calls, making Process Monitor’s detailed operational capture the key feature that supports comprehensive forensic analysis and legally defensible malware investigations