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

Ettercap is a comprehensive MITM attack tool that supports live traffic interception and content injection. It can modify HTTP streams in real time and inject malicious payloads, such as JavaScript or applets, into web traffic.

Reference – CEH v13 Official Study Guide:

Module 8: Sniffing

Quote:

“Ettercap allows attackers to intercept, analyze, and alter data on the fly, including injecting malicious content like Java applets in HTTP sessions during MITM attacks.”

Incorrect Options Explained:

A & D. Wireshark and Tcpdump are passive sniffers with no injection capability.

C. Aircrack-ng is for Wi-Fi key cracking, not traffic manipulation.

===========

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_spoofing

DNS spoofing is a threat that copies the legitimate server destinations to divert the domain's traffic. Ignorant these attacks, the users are redirected to malicious websites, which results in insensitive and personal data being leaked. It is a method of attack where your DNS server is tricked into saving a fake DNS entry. This will make the DNS server recall a fake site for you, thereby posing a threat to vital information stored on your server or computer.

The cache poisoning codes are often found in URLs sent through spam emails. These emails are sent to prompt users to click on the URL, which infects their computer. When the computer is poisoned, it will divert you to a fake IP address that looks like a real thing. This way, the threats are injected into your systems as well.

Different Stages of Attack of DNS Cache Poisoning:

- The attacker proceeds to send DNS queries to the DNS resolver, which forwards the Root/TLD authoritative DNS server request and awaits an answer.

- The attacker overloads the DNS with poisoned responses that contain several IP addresses of the malicious website. To be accepted by the DNS resolver, the attacker's response should match a port number and the query ID field before the DNS response. Also, the attackers can force its response to increasing their chance of success.

- If you are a legitimate user who queries this DNS resolver, you will get a poisoned response from the cache, and you will be automatically redirected to the malicious website.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is covered in CEH v13 Module 12: Hacking Web Applications. It occurs when an attacker tricks a victim’s browser into making unintended, authenticated requests to a web application where the victim is already logged in.

Example:

User logs in to a banking site.

While logged in, the attacker sends the user a crafted link that submits a transaction via a hidden request.

Since the user’s session cookies are valid, the bank processes the request.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Session hijacking: Steals session tokens but doesn’t involve forcing browser actions.

B. SSRF: Server sends a request to an internal service, not via user's browser.

D. XSS: Executes scripts in the user’s browser but doesn't force HTTP requests under the user’s identity.

Social engineering is the term used for a broad range of malicious activities accomplished through human interactions. It uses psychological manipulation to trick users into making security mistakes or giving away sensitive information.

Social engineering attacks typically involve some form of psychological manipulation, fooling otherwise unsuspecting users or employees into handing over confidential or sensitive data. Commonly, social engineering involves email or other communication that invokes urgency, fear, or similar emotions in the victim, leading the victim to promptly reveal sensitive information, click a malicious link, or open a malicious file. Because social engineering involves a human element, preventing these attacks can be tricky for enterprises.

The most effective evasion technique to bypass the IDS signature detection while performing a SQL Injection attack is to leverage string concatenation to break identifiable keywords. This technique involves splitting SQL keywords or operators into smaller parts and joining them with string concatenation operators, such as ‘+’ or ‘||’. This way, the SQL query can still be executed by the database engine, but the IDS cannot recognize the keywords or operators as malicious, as they are hidden within strings. For example, the hacker could replace the keyword ‘OR’ with ‘O’||‘R’ or ‘O’+‘R’ in the SQL query, and the IDS would not be able to match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern12.

The other options are not as effective as option D for the following reasons:

A. Implement case variation by altering the case of SQL statements: This option is not effective because most SQL engines and IDS systems are case-insensitive, meaning that they treat SQL keywords and operators the same regardless of their case. Therefore, altering the case of SQL statements would not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern3.

B. Employ IP fragmentation to obscure the attack payload: This option is not applicable because IP fragmentation is a network-level technique that splits IP packets into smaller fragments to fit the maximum transmission unit (MTU) of the network. IP fragmentation does not affect the content or structure of the SQL query, and it does not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to reassemble the fragments and match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern4.

C. Use Hex encoding to represent the SQL query string: This option is not feasible because Hex encoding is a method of representing binary data in hexadecimal format, such as ‘0x41’ for ‘A’. Hex encoding does not work for SQL queries, as the SQL engine would not be able to interpret the hexadecimal values as valid SQL syntax. Moreover, Hex encoding would not help evade the IDS signature detection, as the IDS would still be able to decode the hexadecimal values and match the signature of a typical SQL injection pattern.

https://linuxsecurityblog.com/2018/12/23/create-a-backdoor-with-cryptcat/

Cryptcat enables us to communicate between two systems and encrypts the communication between them with twofish, one of many excellent encryption algorithms from Bruce Schneier et al. Twofish’s encryption is on par with AES encryption, making it nearly bulletproof. In this way, the IDS can’t detect the malicious behavior taking place even when its traveling across normal HTTP ports like 80 and 443.

The security strategy that you would likely suggest is to adopt a Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy involving ongoing prediction, prevention, detection, and response actions to ensure comprehensive computer network defense. This strategy is based on the concept of continuous monitoring and improvement of the security posture of an organization, using a feedback loop that integrates various security activities and technologies. A Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy aims to proactively identify and mitigate emerging threats, vulnerabilities, and risks, as well as to respond effectively and efficiently to security incidents and breaches. A Continual/Adaptive Security Strategy can help enhance the organization’s security stance by providing the following benefits12:

It can reduce the attack surface and the exposure time of the organization’s network infrastructure, by applying timely patches, updates, and configurations, as well as by implementing security controls and policies.

It can increase the visibility and awareness of the organization’s network activity and behavior, by collecting, analyzing, and correlating data from various sources, such as logs, sensors, alerts, and reports.

It can improve the detection and prevention capabilities of the organization, by using advanced tools and techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, threat intelligence, and behavioral analytics, to identify and block malicious or anomalous patterns and indicators.

It can enhance the response and recovery processes of the organization, by using automated and orchestrated actions, such as isolation, quarantine, remediation, and restoration, to contain and resolve security incidents and breaches, as well as by conducting lessons learned and root cause analysis to prevent recurrence.

The other options are not as appropriate as option C for the following reasons:

A. Develop an in-depth Risk Management process, involving identification, assessment, treatment, tracking, and review of risks to control the potential effects on the organization: This option is not sufficient because risk management is only one aspect of a comprehensive security strategy, and it does not address the dynamic and evolving nature of cyber threats and vulnerabilities. Risk management is a process of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and treating the risks that may affect the organization’s objectives and operations, as well as monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the risk treatment measures3. Risk management can help the organization prioritize and allocate resources for security, but it cannot guarantee the prevention or detection of security incidents and breaches, nor the response and recovery from them.

B. Establish a Defense-in-Depth strategy, incorporating multiple layers of security measures to increase the complexity and decrease the likelihood of a successful attack: This option is not optimal because defense-in-depth is a traditional and static approach to security, and it may not be able to cope with the sophisticated and persistent attacks that exploit unknown or zero-day vulnerabilities. Defense-in-depth is a strategy of implementing multiple and diverse security controls and mechanisms at different layers of the organization’s network infrastructure, such as perimeter, network, endpoint, application, and data, to provide redundancy and resilience against attacks4. Defense-in-depth can help the organization protect its assets and systems from unauthorized access or damage, but it cannot ensure the timely detection and response to security incidents and breaches, nor the continuous improvement of the security posture.

D. Implement an Information Assurance (IA) policy focusing on ensuring the integrity, availability, confidentiality, and authenticity of information systems: This option is not comprehensive because information assurance is a subset of cybersecurity, and it does not cover all the aspects of a holistic security strategy. Information assurance is a discipline of managing the risks associated with the use, processing, storage, and transmission of information and data, and ensuring the protection of the information and data from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction5. Information assurance can help the organization safeguard its information and data from compromise or loss, but it does not address the prevention, detection, and response to security incidents and breaches, nor the adaptation and innovation of the security technologies and processes.

CEH v13 emphasizes that well-secured applications use HTTPS, secure cookies, and session regeneration to defend against common session hijacking techniques. In such hardened environments, traditional attacks like session fixation or simple XSS-based token theft often fail because session IDs change at login and secure flags prevent exposure. The remaining viable approach is session token prediction, an advanced attack that analyzes statistical patterns, entropy weaknesses, or timing issues in session ID generation algorithms. CEH discusses that weak pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) or predictable sequences can allow attackers to compute a valid session ID without intercepting traffic. This method bypasses cookie security and does not rely on manipulating user input, making it suitable for environments with strong defenses. MITM attacks (Option A) require certificate compromise, which is impractical. Session fixation (Option B) fails because the application regenerates tokens. XSS (Option D) is ineffective when secure flags prevent JavaScript access to cookies. Thus, token prediction is the correct answer.