312-50v13 Exam Dumps - Certified Ethical Hacker Exam (CEHv13)

LAN Manager (LM) hashes use the DES (Data Encryption Standard) algorithm to hash passwords. Here's how LM hashing works:

The password is converted to uppercase and padded/truncated to 14 characters.

Split into two 7-character halves.

Each half is used as a DES key to encrypt a constant string ("KGS!@#$%")—resulting in a 16-byte LM hash.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Topic: Windows Password Storage & Cracking

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“LM hashes use the DES encryption algorithm to create password hashes. Due to this method, they are highly vulnerable to brute-force attacks, particularly because they split the password into two 7-character blocks.”

Incorrect Options:

A: MD4 is used in NTLM hashes.

C: SHA is not used in LM.

D: SSL is a transport security protocol, not a hashing algorithm.

A thin Whois model is a type of data model that is used by some domain registrars for storing and looking up Whois information. In a thin Whois model, the registrar only stores the basic information about the domain, such as the domain name, the registrar name, the name servers, and the registration and expiration dates. The rest of the information, such as the contact details of the domain owner, the administrative contact, and the technical contact, is stored by the registry that manages the top-level domain (TLD) of the domain. For example, the registry for .com and .net domains is Verisign, and the registry for .org domains is Public Interest Registry. When a Whois lookup is performed on a domain that uses a thin Whois model, the registrar’s Whois server only returns the basic information and refers the query to the registry’s Whois server for the complete information1.

As a hacker, if you are unable to gather complete Whois information from the registrar for a particular set of data, it might be because the domain’s registrar is using a thin Whois model and the registry’s Whois server is not responding or providing the information. This could be due to various reasons, such as network issues, server errors, rate limits, privacy policies, or legal restrictions. Therefore, the probable data model being utilized by the domain’s registrar for storing and looking up Whois information is a thin Whois model working correctly.

According to CEH v13 Module 09: Social Engineering, both pharming and phishing are forms of fraud that direct users to malicious websites. However, their techniques differ:

Pharming involves modifying DNS entries or the victim's host file to silently redirect users to a malicious site without needing user interaction.

Phishing involves sending links via emails or messages where the URL is visually deceptive (misspelled, similar domain names, homoglyph attacks).

A sniffer tool is a software or hardware device that can capture and analyze network traffic. In a switched Ethernet environment, where each port on a switch is connected to a single device, a sniffer tool can only see the traffic that is destined for or originated from the device it is attached to. However, an attacker can use various techniques to overcome this limitation and sniff the traffic of other devices on the same network. One of these techniques is MAC flooding, which exploits the finite memory of the switch’s MAC address table. The attacker sends a large number of frames with different source MAC addresses to the switch, which fills up the MAC address table and causes the switch to enter a fail-open mode, where it broadcasts all incoming frames to all ports, regardless of the destination MAC address. This way, the attacker can see all the traffic on the network and capture it with a sniffer tool.

The other options are less likely or less effective techniques for sniffing a switched Ethernet network. Compromising physical security to plug into the network directly may allow the attacker to sniff the traffic of the device they are connected to, but not the traffic of other devices on the network. Using a Trojan horse with in-built sniffing capability may allow the attacker to sniff the traffic of the infected device, but not the traffic of other devices on the network, unless the Trojan horse also performs MAC flooding or other techniques to bypass the switch. Using passive sniffing, which involves listening to the network traffic without sending any packets, may provide significant stealth advantages, but it does not help the attacker to see the traffic of other devices on the network, unless the switch is already in fail-open mode or the attacker uses other techniques to induce it. 

One may append the comment “–” operator along with the String for the username and whole avoid executing the password segment of the SQL query. Everything when the — operator would be considered as comment and not dead.

To launch such an attack, the value passed for name could be ’OR ‘1’=‘1’ ; —

Statement = “SELECT * FROM ‘CustomerDB’ WHERE ‘name’ = ‘ ”+ userName + “ ‘ AND ‘password’ = ‘ ” + passwd + “ ‘ ; ”

Statement = “SELECT * FROM ‘CustomerDB’ WHERE ‘name’ = ‘ ’ OR ‘1’=‘1‘;– + “ ‘ AND ‘password’ = ‘ ” + passwd + “ ‘ ; ”

All the records from the customer database would be listed.

Yet, another variation of the SQL Injection Attack can be conducted in dbms systems that allow multiple SQL injection statements. Here, we will also create use of the vulnerability in sure dbms whereby a user provided field isn’t strongly used in or isn’t checked for sort constraints.

This could take place once a numeric field is to be employed in a SQL statement; but, the programmer makes no checks to validate that the user supplied input is numeric.

Variation is an evasion technique whereby the attacker can easily evade any comparison statement. The attacker does this by placing characters such as “' or '1'='1'” in any basic injection statement such as “or 1=1” or with other accepted SQL comments.

Evasion Technique: Variation Variation is an evasion technique whereby the attacker can easily evade any comparison statement. The attacker does this by placing characters such as “' or '1'='1'” in any basic injection statement such as “or 1=1” or with other accepted SQL comments. The SQL interprets this as a comparison between two strings or characters instead of two numeric values. As the evaluation of two strings yields a true statement, similarly, the evaluation of two numeric values yields a true statement, thus rendering the evaluation of the complete query unaffected. It is also possible to write many other signatures; thus, there are infinite possibilities of variation as well. The main aim of the attacker is to have a WHERE statement that is always evaluated as “true” so that any mathematical or string comparison can be used, where the SQL can perform the same.

In CEH’s web application and mobile security modules, improper session management is defined as a failure to enforce session expiration, token invalidation, or secure session lifecycle controls. When an application does not invalidate a session token after logout, attackers can exploit this by performing a replay attack: reusing previously captured session identifiers to impersonate the user and gain unauthorized access. CEH teaches that replaying a live token is the simplest and most direct exploitation method because it does not require guessing or stealing new tokens—the attacker simply reuses a valid one that should have been invalidated. CSRF relies on exploiting a user’s active session and is not required when the attacker already possesses a reusable token. Brute-forcing session tokens is computationally expensive and unnecessary. SQL injection is unrelated to session lifecycle flaws unless token storage is directly exposed. Therefore, a replay attack is the correct exploitation method.

CEH v13 details the standard penetration testing workflow, where confirmed critical vulnerabilities—especially those affecting core systems like database servers—should be prioritized for exploitation only after verification and when explicitly permitted by the rules of engagement. Exploiting a known vulnerability using vetted tools (e.g., Metasploit, CVE-specific exploits) provides evidence of real-world risk and validates the severity rating. Brute-forcing logins (Option B) is inefficient and often outside scope. Ignoring a critical vulnerability (Option C) violates CEH’s prioritization guidelines. A DoS attack (Option D) is never appropriate unless the engagement explicitly authorizes destructive testing, which is rare. CEH stresses that high-impact vulnerabilities should be exploited to demonstrate business risk, privilege escalation potential, data exposure, or lateral movement possibilities—making Option A fully aligned with CEH methodology.

Reconnaissance is the first phase of ethical hacking and also part of the cyber kill chain. It involves gathering publicly available information about a target, such as employee names, company structure, and branding, which is later used in social engineering or phishing attacks.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 2: Footprinting and Reconnaissance

Quote:

“Reconnaissance involves gathering information from public sources such as websites, social networks, and press releases. This is used to craft targeted phishing messages or exploit organizational weaknesses.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A & B. Not formal terms in ethical hacking.

D. Enumeration involves interacting with systems to extract technical data.