Pass the ECCouncil ECIH 212-89 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

This scenario represents a classic insider data exfiltration incident, where a legitimate user abuses authorized access to move sensitive information outside organizational boundaries. The ECIH Insider Threat module clearly identifies Data Loss Prevention (DLP) as the primary technical control for detecting and preventing such activity.

Option B is correct because DLP solutions are designed to monitor, classify, and control sensitive data in motion, at rest, and in use. DLP can detect when regulated or confidential data is sent via email, uploaded to cloud services, or copied to external destinations, and can block or alert on policy violations in real time. ECIH emphasizes that DLP is especially effective against low-and-slow insider leaks that bypass perimeter defenses.

Option A improves awareness but does not enforce controls. Option C is overly restrictive and does not prevent other exfiltration channels. Option D is blunt and easily bypassed while disrupting legitimate business use.

ECIH guidance stresses layered insider threat defenses combining policy, monitoring, and enforcement. DLP provides visibility and control without relying solely on user behavior, making it the most effective priority action.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

Stored XSS vulnerabilities arise when untrusted input is rendered without proper output encoding. The ECIH Web Application module clearly states that output encoding is the primary defense against XSS.

Option A is correct because encoding ensures that user-supplied input is treated as data rather than executable script. This directly prevents malicious script execution in users’ browsers.

Options B and C provide additional protection but do not fix the root cause. Option D is unrelated to XSS prevention.

ECIH emphasizes fixing vulnerabilities at the application logic level, making output encoding the correct focus.

Yesware is a tool primarily known for its email tracking capabilities, which can be useful for sales, marketing, and customer relationship management. However, in the context of investigating email attacks and analyzing incidents to extract details such as sender identity, mail server, sender’s IP address, and location, a more appropriate tool would be one that specializes in analyzing and extracting detailed header information from emails, providing insights into the path an email took across the internet. While Yesware can provide data related to email interactions, it might not offer the depth of forensic analysis required for incident investigation. Tools like email header analyzers, which are designed specifically for dissecting and interpreting email headers, would be more fitting. In the absence of a direct match from the given options, the description might imply a broader interpretation of tools like Yesware in context but traditionally, tools specifically designed for email forensics would be sought after for this task.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

This scenario exemplifies a classic malicious insider threat, where a trusted employee with legitimate access abuses their privileges. According to the EC-Council ECIH curriculum, traditional perimeter controls and static access restrictions are often ineffective against insiders because the actions appear legitimate at a surface level. Therefore, the primary emphasis must be on behavior-based detection.

Option D is correct because behavioral analytics enables organizations to establish baselines of normal employee behavior and identify deviations such as unusual access times, excessive data downloads, atypical system usage, or abnormal data transfer patterns. ECIH highlights behavioral monitoring as a critical control for detecting insider threats early, especially when access credentials are valid and authorized.

Option A may limit productivity and does not detect malicious intent. Option B is an administrative practice with limited security value. Option C improves awareness but does not detect deliberate malicious behavior.

By implementing behavioral analytics, ClobalTech can identify subtle indicators of insider misuse, respond earlier, and reduce the impact of long-term data exfiltration, aligning with ECIH best practices for insider threat mitigation.

In the context of information security, the Incident Manager (IM) plays a crucial role in handling incidents from both a management and technical perspective. The Incident Manager is responsible for overseeing the entire incident response process, coordinating with relevant stakeholders, ensuring that incidents are analyzed, contained, and eradicated efficiently, and that recovery processes are initiated promptly. They are pivotal in ensuring communication flows smoothly between technical teams and upper management and that all actions taken are aligned with the organization's broader security policies and objectives. Unlike network administrators, threat researchers, or forensic investigators who may play more specialized roles within the incident response process, the Incident Manager has a broad oversight role that encompasses both technical and managerial aspects to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated response to security incidents.

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF or XSRF) is an attack that tricks the victim's browser into executing unauthorized actions on a website where they are currently authenticated. In this scenario, the attacker exploits the trust that a site has in the user's browser, effectively forcing the browser to perform actions without the user's knowledge or consent. For example, if the user is logged into their bank's website, an attacker could craft a malicious request to transfer funds without the user's direct interaction. CSRF attacks rely on authenticated sessions and typically target state-changing requests to compromise user or application data.

The Slowloris attack is a type of application-layer attack that targets the web server by establishing and maintaining many simultaneous HTTP connections to the target server. Unlike traditional network-layer DoS/DDoS attacks such as UDP flood or SYN flood, Slowloris is designed to hold as many connections to the target web server open for as long as possible. It does so by sending partial requests, which are never completed, and periodically sending subsequent HTTP headers to keep the connections open. This consumes the server's resources, leading to denial of service as legitimate users cannot establish connections. The Slowloris attack is effective even against servers with a high bandwidth because it targets the server's connection pool, not its network bandwidth.

During the incident handling and response (IH&R) process, the stage of "Evidence gathering and forensics analysis" involves the collection of evidence, forensic analysis, and detailed investigation to uncover the root cause of the incident. This stage is crucial for understanding how the incident occurred, identifying the threat actors involved, the methods they used (threat vectors), and the extent of the impact. By analyzing evidence, incident responders can reconstruct the sequence of events, identify the vulnerabilities exploited, and determine the scope of the incident. This information is vital for resolving the incident effectively and taking steps to prevent future occurrences.

For memory dump analysis, tools like Scylla and OllyDumpEx are more suited. These tools are designed to analyze and extract information from memory dumps, which can be crucial for understanding the state of a system at the time of an incident. Scylla is used for reconstructing imports in dumped binaries, while OllyDumpEx is an OllyDbg plugin used for dumping process memory. Both tools are valuable for incident handlers like Rinni who are performing memory dump analysis to uncover evidence or understand the behavior of malicious software.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

In healthcare environments, endpoint security incidents have direct implications for patient safety and care delivery. The ECIH Endpoint Security module stresses that endpoint incident handling is critical not only for data protection but also for maintaining essential services.

Option A is correct because healthcare organizations depend on endpoint availability for diagnostics, treatment, and patient records. Ransomware that disrupts endpoints can delay care, endanger patients, and cause cascading operational failures. ECIH highlights that maintaining business and operational continuity is the primary driver for robust endpoint response in critical sectors.

Options B and D are important considerations but are secondary outcomes of the incident. Option C is unnecessary and impractical as an immediate rationale.

ECIH consistently emphasizes that in sectors like healthcare, endpoint IH&R frameworks exist first and foremost to ensure uninterrupted service delivery, making Option A correct.