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

The correct answer is B, It replaces legitimate programs. A rootkit is malicious software used after compromise to hide the attacker’s presence, maintain privileged access, and avoid detection. CEH-aligned material describes rootkits as tools that obscure system compromise by replacing or substituting administrator utilities with modified versions that hide malicious activity. Linux rootkit material also states that rootkits contain replacement executables for critical operating system components, used to hide evidence and provide backdoor access. Therefore, among the options, replacing legitimate programs is the best match. Option A describes a backdoor concept more generally. Option C describes a vulnerability/exploitation condition, not a rootkit’s purpose. Option D may describe one possible backdoor behavior, but it is not the primary rootkit objective. Rootkits commonly hide files, processes, registry entries, logs, and malicious services, making detection and removal difficult.

The correct answer is B. Cryptographically binding authentication tokens to the TLS connection context.

The scenario describes a defense against session token replay. The attacker/tester has a valid authentication identifier, but the application rejects it when it is reused from a different machine and a different encrypted channel. This indicates that the token is not accepted by itself; it is tied to the original TLS-secured session context.

CEH-aligned session hijacking material explains that session replay occurs when an attacker captures an authentication token and replays the request to obtain unauthorized access. It also describes session hijacking as taking over an authenticated session after authentication has already completed . TLS material explains that TLS provides secure communication, peer authentication, shared-secret generation, and secure session establishment between endpoints . Binding the token to the TLS context prevents a captured token from being reused over a different TLS connection.

Option A. Encrypting DNS resolution traffic using DNS over HTTPS is incorrect because DNS over HTTPS protects DNS lookups, not application session tokens.

Option C. Applying IPsec protection at the network layer is incorrect because IPsec protects traffic at the network layer. The question specifically describes an application-issued authentication identifier being validated against the original secure exchange.

Option D. Enforcing HTTP Strict Transport Security is incorrect because HSTS forces browsers to use HTTPS, but it does not cryptographically bind a token to a specific TLS channel.

Therefore, the best answer is B. Cryptographically binding authentication tokens to the TLS connection context.

The correct answer is B. Botnet Agents because the behavior described matches a command-and-control (C2) driven malware model where multiple compromised systems (“bots” or “zombies”) communicate with a remote controller and can be issued coordinated commands. In CEH-aligned malware concepts, a botnet is a collection of infected endpoints under centralized or distributed control. The malicious component installed on each infected workstation is commonly referred to as a bot/bot agent, which “checks in” to a C2 server to receive instructions and execute tasks silently in the background.

Several details strongly indicate botnet agent behavior: the payload is delivered via a disguised email attachment (a common initial infection vector), compromised machines silently communicate outbound to a remote server, and—most importantly—Daniel confirms multiple infected endpoints can receive synchronized commands and carry out actions simultaneously. The example of “sending bursts of outbound traffic on demand” aligns with typical botnet capabilities such as orchestrated DDoS traffic generation, mass scanning, spam sending, credential stuffing, or distributed task execution. The sustained observation “over the following week” also fits a botnet model where infected hosts maintain persistence and periodically beacon to C2 for updates and instructions.

Why the other options do not fit: Spyware primarily focuses on covertly collecting information (keystrokes, screenshots, browsing data) rather than executing synchronized commands across many machines. Scareware relies on alarming messages to trick users into paying or installing unwanted software; it does not describe silent C2 coordination. PUAs are typically unwanted but not necessarily malicious, often installed via bundling and usually lack structured C2 for coordinated remote command execution.

Therefore, the malicious component being simulated is best identified as botnet agents operating under C2 control.

The correct answer is B because an ACK scan is mainly used to determine firewall filtering rules, not to identify services or directly confirm open and closed ports. In CEH scanning methodology, an ACK scan sends TCP packets with only the ACK flag set and analyzes how the target or intermediate firewall responds. CEH material states that ACK probe scanning helps identify filtering systems: if an RST packet is returned, packets to that port are not being filtered; if there is no response, a stateful firewall is likely filtering the packet. Another CEH exam-focused reference similarly notes that ACK probes check filtering at the remote end; no response indicates a stateful firewall between the attacker and host, while an RST response indicates there is not. Services are better identified through version detection or banner grabbing, while open ports are commonly identified with SYN or TCP connect scans. Therefore, the best CEH answer is firewall rules.

This scenario is a textbook example of a Whaling Attack, a highly targeted phishing technique described in the CEH v13 Social Engineering module. Whaling specifically targets senior executives or high-ranking individuals, exploiting their authority, access privileges, and decision-making roles.

In the given case, the attacker crafts a personalized email, impersonates the CEO, and uses legitimate corporate branding to build trust. The malicious PDF attachment delivers a backdoor, aligning with CEH v13 descriptions of advanced spear-phishing techniques used against executives.

CEH v13 differentiates whaling from other phishing types:

Broad phishing targets large groups indiscriminately.

Pharming redirects users via DNS manipulation.

Email clone attacks copy legitimate emails but typically target peers, not executives.

Whaling attacks are particularly dangerous because executives often bypass security scrutiny and possess elevated system access. CEH v13 emphasizes executive awareness training as a key mitigation strategy.

Therefore, the correct answer is Whaling attack aimed at high-ranking personnel.

A low-and-slow scanning technique spreads probe attempts over long intervals, reducing the chance of triggering IDS signatures that rely on detecting rapid or high-volume scans. CEH highlights timing-based evasion as an effective method for reconnaissance against networks with strict perimeter controls.

Operational Technology and ICS environments often suffer from misconfigurations such as unchanged factory-default passwords. CEH identifies exploiting default credentials as a direct and effective method because ICS devices frequently lack strong authentication controls. Using these built-in credentials grants immediate unauthorized access to supervisory controls, enabling adversaries to manipulate configurations, disrupt processes, or escalate attacks across critical systems.

CEH v13 identifies Man-in-the-Browser (MitB) attacks as one of the most dangerous and difficult-to-detect session hijacking techniques, especially in online banking environments. In MitB attacks, malware operates inside the user’s browser, intercepting and manipulating transactions in real time.

Unlike XSS or session fixation attacks, MitB bypasses server-side security controls entirely. Even strong encryption, multi-factor authentication, and secure cookies are ineffective because the attack occurs after authentication, within a trusted session.

Passive sniffing is limited by encryption, and session fixation relies on poor session management. Covert XSS requires injection points and is more easily mitigated.

CEH v13 emphasizes that MitB attacks can modify transaction details without user awareness, making detection extremely difficult. Therefore, Option B is correct.