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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

This scenario clearly aligns with the eradication phase of the ECIH malware incident handling lifecycle. After detection and containment, eradication focuses on completely removing malicious artifacts and ensuring the threat cannot re-emerge.

Option D is correct because Liam’s actions—malware removal, account disabling, system restoration, and IOC documentation—are all aimed at fully eliminating the malware and attacker footholds. ECIH emphasizes that eradication must address malware binaries, persistence mechanisms, compromised credentials, and residual indicators.

Option B (forensic preservation) would avoid system changes, which Liam does not do. Option A is a training activity unrelated to response. Option C is infrastructure improvement, not incident handling.

ECIH explicitly states that failure to eradicate all traces often leads to reinfection or continued attacker access. Liam’s comprehensive approach ensures the environment is returned to a trusted state and prepares detection systems for future prevention.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

Once malware is identified, ECIH guidance requires responders to analyze before eradication to understand scope, infection vectors, persistence mechanisms, and data impact. This ensures effective removal and prevents reinfection.

Option C is correct because forensic analysis allows investigators to determine how the malware entered the system, what data was accessed, and whether additional components are compromised. Without this understanding, containment and recovery efforts may be incomplete or ineffective.

Option A is a containment step but does not address root cause. Option B is a notification step that must be supported by verified facts. Option D protects future data but does not address the active malware.

Therefore, forensic analysis is the ideal primary action following detection, as emphasized in the ECIH malware handling process.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

This scenario is a clear example of a deceptive phishing attack, which is extensively covered in the ECIH Email Security Incident module. Deceptive phishing involves impersonating a trusted internal entity—such as HR—to trick recipients into disclosing sensitive information like credentials or personal data.

Option D is correct because the email impersonates HR, uses social engineering, and directs users to a visually identical but fraudulent login page hosted on an unfamiliar domain. These characteristics are classic indicators of deceptive phishing.

Option A refers to DNS manipulation and is not evidenced here. Option B involves overwhelming email volume rather than deception. Option C refers to unsolicited bulk email without impersonation.

Elena’s actions align with ECIH best practices: preserving headers for forensic validation, capturing screenshots to document fraudulent infrastructure, and blocking malicious domains to prevent further exposure. Correctly categorizing the incident as deceptive phishing ensures appropriate eradication, awareness, and reporting measures.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

In the ECIH email incident response framework, eradication extends beyond internal cleanup and includes threat intelligence sharing. Option B is correct because sharing phishing indicators with trusted security communities helps disrupt attacker infrastructure and prevents reuse of the same campaign against other organizations.

Option A is unrelated. Option C is ineffective against phishing. Option D is overly destructive and unnecessary.

ECIH promotes collaborative defense as part of post-detection eradication and prevention.

The correct flow of stages in an Incident Handling and Response (IH&R) process as outlined in the Incident Handler (ECIH v3) by EC-Council begins with Preparation. This phase involves getting ready for potential incidents by developing plans, policies, and procedures, and ensuring that tools and team training are up to date. Incident Recording is the next stage, where incidents are documented and reported. Incident Triage follows, prioritizing incidents based on their impact and urgency. Containment is next, aiming to limit the damage of the incident and prevent further spread. Eradication comes after containment, where the root cause of the incident is removed. Recovery is the stage where affected systems are restored to their operational status. Post-Incident Activities conclude the process, reviewing and learning from the incident to improve future response efforts.

Disabling security options such as two-factor authentication (2FA) and CAPTCHA is not a countermeasure to eradicate cloud security incidents. In fact, it is contrary to best security practices. 2FA adds an additional layer of security by requiring two forms of verification before granting access to an account or system. CAPTCHA helps prevent automated attacks by ensuring that the entity accessing the service is human. Both are important security measures that protect against unauthorized access and automated attacks, thereby enhancing cloud security.

In the scenario described, Stanley aims to ensure that the digital evidence he collected is admissible in court. This means the evidence must be gathered, handled, and presented in a manner that complies with legal standards, ensuring it can be legally used in a trial. Admissibility is a crucial characteristic of digital evidence, as it must be relevant, authentic, and obtained without violating any laws or rights to privacy. The evidence must also be presented in a clear and comprehensible manner to be understood by the members of the jury, which further supports its admissibility in court.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (ECIH-aligned):

ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A.16 focuses on information security incident management, including reporting, assessment, response, and learning. The ECIH curriculum aligns closely with these requirements, emphasizing structured procedures and continuous improvement.

Option C is correct because it directly addresses the identified gaps: clear escalation channels, consistent outcome tracking, and incorporation of lessons learned. ECIH stresses that post-incident activities—often overlooked—are essential for improving readiness and preventing recurrence.

Option A supports preparedness but does not address systemic process gaps. Option B improves visibility but not governance. Option D is a technical control unrelated to incident learning and escalation.

Thus, implementing structured incident escalation and post-incident knowledge integration is the priority action for compliance and resilience.

A side channel attack, as described in the scenario, involves an attacker using indirect methods to gather information from a system. In this case, Alice is exploiting the shared physical resources, specifically the processor cache, of a virtual machine host to steal data from another virtual machine on the same host. This type of attack does not directly breach the system through conventional means like breaking encryption but instead takes advantage of the information leaked by the physical implementation of the system, such as timing information, power consumption, electromagnetic leaks, or, as in this case, shared resource utilization, to infer the secret data.