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

Public-key cryptography, or asymmetric cryptography, is a cryptographic system that uses pairs of keys: public keys (which may be known to others), and private keys (which may never be known by any except the owner). The generation of such key pairs depends on cryptographic algorithms which are based on mathematical problems termed one-way functions. Effective security requires keeping the private key private; the public key can be openly distributed without compromising security.

In such a system, any person can encrypt a message using the intended receiver's public key, but that encrypted message can only be decrypted with the receiver's private key. This allows, for instance, a server program to generate a cryptographic key intended for a suitable symmetric-key cryptography, then to use a client's openly-shared public key to encrypt that newly generated symmetric key. The server can then send this encrypted symmetric key over an insecure channel to the client; only the client can decrypt it using the client's private key (which pairs with the public key used by the server to encrypt the message). With the client and server both having the same symmetric key, they can safely use symmetric key encryption (likely much faster) to communicate over otherwise-insecure channels. This scheme has the advantage of not having to manually pre-share symmetric keys (a fundamentally difficult problem) while gaining the higher data throughput advantage of symmetric-key cryptography.

With public-key cryptography, robust authentication is also possible. A sender can combine a message with a private key to create a short digital signature on the message. Anyone with the sender's corresponding public key can combine that message with a claimed digital signature; if the signature matches the message, the origin of the message is verified (i.e., it must have been made by the owner of the corresponding private key).

Public key algorithms are fundamental security primitives in modern cryptosystems, including applications and protocols which offer assurance of the confidentiality, authenticity and non-repudiability of electronic communications and data storage. They underpin numerous Internet standards, such as Transport Layer Security (TLS), S/MIME, PGP, and GPG. Some public key algorithms provide key distribution and secrecy (e.g., Diffie–Hellman key exchange), some provide digital signatures (e.g., Digital Signature Algorithm), and some provide both (e.g., RSA). Compared to symmetric encryption, asymmetric encryption is rather slower than good symmetric encryption, too slow for many purposes. Today's cryptosystems (such as TLS, Secure Shell) use both symmetric encryption and asymmetric encryption.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

An Information Security Policy (ISP) is a high-level document that defines:

What employees can and cannot do with IT systems.

What data is protected and how.

The consequences of policy violations.

The company's commitment to security.

It must be signed by users to enforce compliance and protect organizational assets.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 20: Information Security Policies

Module 1: Governance, Risk, and Compliance

IoTSeeker is a specialized tool used to identify Internet of Things (IoT) devices that are accessible over a network and are still configured with their default factory credentials. These devices often ship with insecure settings, which attackers can exploit.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

IoTSeeker:

Automatically scans for common IoT devices

Uses a database of known default usernames and passwords

Flags insecure devices for further investigation or exploitation

The tool is commonly used in the reconnaissance phase for identifying low-hanging vulnerabilities in IoT environments.

Incorrect options:

B. IoT Inspector monitors network traffic for smart devices but is more focused on behavior monitoring than credential scanning.

C. AT&T IoT Platform and D. Azure IoT Central are legitimate enterprise platforms for IoT device management and are not penetration testing tools.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 18: IoT and OT Hacking

Section: “IoT Attack Surface”

Tool Reference: “IoTSeeker”

Practical Lab: CEH Engage IoT Device Discovery

===========

CEH v13 explains that multi-vector DDoS attacks, especially those combining volumetric reflection (DNS amplification) with application-layer exhaustion (Slowloris), require multi-layered mitigation. Standard firewalls and IPS devices cannot handle large-scale distributed attacks without causing collateral damage to legitimate traffic. CEH emphasizes the need for hybrid DDoS protection, combining on-premises appliances for real-time local filtering with cloud-based scrubbing centers capable of absorbing massive volumetric floods. Cloud scrubbing removes malicious traffic upstream, while on-prem devices mitigate application-layer anomalies. Increasing bandwidth (Option A) is ineffective against reflection attacks. IPS (Option B) cannot handle Slowloris-style partial requests at scale. Blocking all external DNS/HTTP (Option C) would deny service to legitimate users. The correct CEH-aligned solution is hybrid DDoS mitigation services.

Bug bounty programs allow independent security researchers to report bugs to an companies and receive rewards or compensation. These bugs area unit sometimes security exploits and vulnerabilities, although they will additionally embody method problems, hardware flaws, and so on.

The reports area unit usually created through a program travel by associate degree freelance third party (like Bugcrowd or HackerOne). The companies can got wind of (and run) a program curated to the organization’s wants.

Programs is also non-public (invite-only) wherever reports area unit unbroken confidential to the organization or public (where anyone will sign in and join). they will happen over a collection timeframe or with without stopping date (though the second possibility is a lot of common).

Who uses bug bounty programs?

Many major organizations use bug bounties as an area of their security program, together with AOL, Android, Apple, Digital Ocean, and goldman Sachs. you’ll read an inventory of all the programs offered by major bug bounty suppliers, Bugcrowd and HackerOne, at these links.

Why do corporations use bug bounty programs?

Bug bounty programs provide corporations the flexibility to harness an outsized cluster of hackers so as to seek out bugs in their code.

This gives them access to a bigger variety of hackers or testers than they’d be able to access on a one-on-one basis. It {can also|also will|can even|may also|may} increase the probabilities that bugs area unit found and reported to them before malicious hackers can exploit them.

It may also be an honest publicity alternative for a firm. As bug bounties became a lot of common, having a bug bounty program will signal to the general public and even regulators that a corporation incorporates a mature security program.

This trend is likely to continue, as some have began to see bug bounty programs as an business normal that all companies ought to invest in.

Why do researchers and hackers participate in bug bounty programs?

Finding and news bugs via a bug bounty program may end up in each money bonuses and recognition. In some cases, it will be a good thanks to show real-world expertise once you are looking for employment, or will even facilitate introduce you to parents on the protection team within an companies.

This can be full time income for a few of us, income to supplement employment, or the way to point out off your skills and find a full time job.

It may also be fun! it is a nice (legal) probability to check out your skills against huge companies and government agencies.

What area unit the disadvantages of a bug bounty program for independent researchers and hackers?

A lot of hackers participate in these varieties of programs, and it will be tough to form a major quantity of cash on the platform.

In order to say the reward, the hacker has to be the primary person to submit the bug to the program. meaning that in apply, you may pay weeks searching for a bug to use, solely to be the person to report it and build no cash.

Roughly ninety seven of participants on major bug bounty platforms haven’t sold-out a bug.

In fact, a 2019 report from HackerOne confirmed that out of quite three hundred,000 registered users, solely around two.5% received a bounty in their time on the platform.

Essentially, most hackers are not creating a lot of cash on these platforms, and really few square measure creating enough to switch a full time wage (plus they do not have advantages like vacation days, insurance, and retirement planning).

What square measure the disadvantages of bug bounty programs for organizations?

These programs square measure solely helpful if the program ends up in the companies realizeing issues that they weren’t able to find themselves (and if they’ll fix those problems)!

If the companies is not mature enough to be able to quickly rectify known problems, a bug bounty program is not the right alternative for his or her companies.

Also, any bug bounty program is probably going to draw in an outsized range of submissions, several of which can not be high-quality submissions. a corporation must be ready to cope with the exaggerated volume of alerts, and also the risk of a coffee signal to noise magnitude relation (essentially that it’s probably that they’re going to receive quite few unhelpful reports for each useful report).

Additionally, if the program does not attract enough participants (or participants with the incorrect talent set, and so participants are not able to establish any bugs), the program is not useful for the companies.

The overwhelming majority of bug bounty participants consider web site vulnerabilities (72%, per HackerOn), whereas solely a number of (3.5%) value more highly to seek for package vulnerabilities.

This is probably because of the actual fact that hacking in operation systems (like network hardware and memory) needs a big quantity of extremely specialised experience. this implies that firms may even see vital come on investment for bug bounties on websites, and not for alternative applications, notably those that need specialised experience.

This conjointly implies that organizations which require to look at AN application or web site among a selected time-frame may not need to rely on a bug bounty as there is no guarantee of once or if they receive reports.

Finally, it are often probably risky to permit freelance researchers to try to penetrate your network. this could end in public speech act of bugs, inflicting name harm within the limelight (which could end in individuals not eager to purchase the organizations’ product or service), or speech act of bugs to additional malicious third parties, United Nations agency may use this data to focus on the organization.

Key observations in the packet capture:

Repeated 0x90 values indicate a NOP sled (No Operation instructions), commonly used in buffer overflow payloads to guide execution to the malicious shellcode.

The presence of "/bin/sh" in ASCII indicates that the attacker intends to launch a shell (command-line access) on the victim’s system once the overflow is successful.

The payload likely contains shellcode that spawns a shell, giving the attacker command-line access.

From CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats

Module 9: Denial-of-Service

Module 5: Vulnerability Analysis

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“A buffer overflow exploit typically involves injecting a NOP sled followed by shellcode. The string '/bin/sh' is a tell-tale sign of shell-spawning code that aims to give the attacker command access.”

Incorrect Options:

A: There's no evidence the IDS blocked the attack—only that it logged it.

B: Creating a directory would not involve a NOP sled or spawn a shell.

C: We cannot confirm success; only the intent and method are clear.

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.

According to CEH v13 Module 08: Sniffing, the attack described is a classic example of ARP spoofing/poisoning which leads to Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) scenarios. In such attacks, a malicious actor sends forged ARP responses to associate their MAC address with the IP address of a target system, redirecting traffic through their machine.

Tool Used: BetterCAP

BetterCAP is a powerful, modular MITM framework.

It can:

Perform ARP spoofing

Intercept and manipulate HTTP/HTTPS traffic

Modify packets in real-time

Carry out credential harvesting and session hijacking

Miley's actions match the default behavior of BetterCAP during an ARP spoofing attack:

Spoof ARP to redirect traffic.

Intercept and analyze (or manipulate) traffic.

Option Clarification:

A. Gobbler: An older ARP tool, but mostly for ARP scanning, not modern MITM attacks.

B. KDerpNSpoof: Incorrect or misspelled; not a recognized CEH tool.

C. BetterCAP: Correct – used for ARP spoofing and traffic manipulation.

D. Wireshark: Passive sniffer; cannot perform ARP spoofing or MITM.