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

When a user encrypts plaintext with PGP, PGP first compresses the plaintext. The session key works with a very secure, fast conventional encryption algorithm to encrypt the plaintext; the result is ciphertext. Once the data is encrypted, the session key is then encrypted to the recipient's public key

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) is an encryption program that provides cryptographic privacy and authentication for data communication. PGP is used for signing, encrypting, and decrypting texts, e-mails, files, directories, and whole disk partitions and to increase the security of e-mail communications.

PGP encryption uses a serial combination of hashing, data compression, symmetric-key cryptography, and finally public-key cryptography; each step uses one of several supported algorithms. Each public key is bound to a username or an e-mail address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography

Public key encryption uses two different keys. One key is used to encrypt the information and the other is used to decrypt the information. Sometimes this is referred to as asymmetric encryption because two keys are required to make the system and/or process work securely. One key is known as the public key and should be shared by the owner with anyone who will be securely communicating with the key owner. However, the owner’s secret key is not to be shared and considered a private key. If the private key is shared with unauthorized recipients, the encryption mechanisms protecting the information must be considered compromised.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

Script Kiddies are individuals with minimal technical skills who use existing tools or scripts developed by others to perform attacks. They generally do not understand the underlying mechanisms and rely on publicly available hacking tools.

From CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 1: Introduction to Ethical Hacking → Hacker Types

“Script kiddies are unskilled attackers who use tools created by others.”

The attack scenario is best described as Instant Messenger Applications, and the measure that could have prevented it is verifying the sender’s identity before opening any files. Instant Messenger Applications are communication tools that allow users to exchange text, voice, video, and file messages in real time. However, they can also be used as attack vectors for spreading malware, such as viruses, worms, or Trojans, by exploiting the trust and familiarity between the users. In this scenario, the attacker compromised one of the team member’s messenger account and used it to send malicious files to the other team members, who may have opened them without suspicion, thus infecting their systems. This type of attack is also known as an instant messaging worm12.

To prevent this type of attack, the users should verify the sender’s identity before opening any files sent through instant messenger applications. This can be done by checking the sender’s profile, asking for confirmation, or using a secure channel. Additionally, the users should also follow other security tips, such as using strong passwords, updating the application software, scanning the files with antivirus software, and reporting any suspicious activity34.

Vulnerability scanning solutions perform vulnerability penetration tests on the organizational network in three steps:

1. Locating nodes: The first step in vulnerability scanning is to locate live hosts in the target network using various scanning techniques.

2. Performing service and OS discovery on them: After detecting the live hosts in the target network, the next step is to enumerate the open ports and services and the operating system on the target systems.

3. Testing those services and OS for known vulnerabilities: Finally, after identifying the open services and the operating system running on the target nodes, they are tested for known vulnerabilities.

The scenario describes an API vulnerability where unauthorized users are able to view, modify, or delete sensitive data by interacting with API objects. This indicates a failure in access control—specifically, a lack of Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) validation.

Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC):

ABAC is an advanced access control model that evaluates access permissions based on attributes of the user, the resource, and the environment (e.g., user role, data sensitivity, location, etc.).

When ABAC is not properly implemented ("No ABAC validation"), APIs may allow users to access or manipulate objects they shouldn't have access to.

In APIs, this typically results in vulnerabilities like Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR), where users can tamper with object identifiers (IDs) to access or alter data that doesn’t belong to them.

This is one of the top risks highlighted by the OWASP API Security Top 10 (e.g., Broken Object Level Authorization).

Incorrect Options:

A. Code injection refers to injecting malicious code (e.g., SQLi, XSS), not improper access control.

B. Improper use of CORS (Cross-Origin Resource Sharing) may lead to unauthorized data exposure but doesn’t describe unauthorized object access in an API.

D. Business logic flaws relate to weaknesses in application workflows and rules, not direct access control failures.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Courseware:

Module 14: Hacking Web Applications

Section: "API Security Threats"

Subsection: "Access Control Failures in APIs (IDOR, BOLA, ABAC-related flaws)"

OWASP API Security Top 10: 2023 – A1: Broken Object Level Authorization

CEH iLabs and CEH Engage also demonstrate API-based attack vectors exploiting access control weaknesses.

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

In CEH v13 Module 10: Vulnerability Assessment, the Vulnerability Management Lifecycle is defined with the following structured steps:

Identify assets & baseline (Step 2)

Vulnerability scanning (Step 5)

Risk assessment/prioritization (Step 6)

Remediation (Step 1)

Verification (Step 3)

Continuous monitoring (Step 4)

So the correct lifecycle flow is:

2 → 5 → 6 → 1 → 3 → 4

This ensures vulnerabilities are identified, assessed, remediated, validated, and monitored on an ongoing basis.

The virus described changes its own code with each execution but still performs the same actions. This is the hallmark of a Metamorphic Virus. Unlike polymorphic viruses (which use encrypted code with a changing decryptor), metamorphic viruses rewrite their own code entirely — including their decryption and execution routines — to avoid pattern detection by antivirus software.

Key characteristics of metamorphic viruses seen in the scenario:

Mutates completely on every execution.

Keeps overall functionality identical (semantics intact).

Alters its appearance and logic flow.

From CEH v13 Courseware:

Module 6: Malware Threats → Types of Viruses and Obfuscation Techniques

CEH v13 Study Guide states:

“Metamorphic viruses modify their own code structure and appearance with each iteration, without altering their underlying behavior. This makes them more difficult to detect through signature-based mechanisms.”

Incorrect Options:

A: Polymorphic viruses encrypt themselves with a changing decryptor stub but do not change their core logic.

C: “Dravidic Virus” is not a recognized term in cybersecurity.

D: Stealth viruses hide their presence (e.g., by intercepting system calls), but do not change their code structure.